Hanging in the Balance

I think that by now the vision of an Aquarian Utopia populated by highly evolved, spiritualized beings devoted solely to the perfection of humanity has very little currency outside the lunatic fringe. At least I wish that were the case. The fact is, the idea has been marketed very successfully. If you can get a population to believe such things, they are very easy to control.

The illusion of progress makes real progress all but impossible to achieve. If you don’t realize there is a problem, there is no motivation to solve it. There are of course highly evolved and spiritualized beings here on Earth. There always has been. Humanity didn’t need to wait for Saturn.

This is likely to be the last article in a series regarding the nature of the Aquarian Age. The series of articles have been in large part a response to Robert Zoller whose views are notably dystopian.  I’m accepting Zoller on his own terms and methodology for this project. Although I’ve added many of my own thoughts, I find myself in general agreement with Zoller.

When we are talking about an Age, we paint with a very broad brush. This makes most astrologers understandably uneasy (or it ought to) but this is the right tool for the occasion. However, we do need to be careful of using the correct terms. For example, the word “fascist” has become so overworked that it’s oftentimes used in ways that are cliche, not helpful at all or simply spurious.

When the courtyard attendant asks someone not to smoke within nine meters of the door, he might be called a Nazis in an absurd attempt to link the enforcement of rules designed to protect asthmatics and non smokers to Nazi atrocities during the Third Reich.  This sort of trivial use or misuse of the term makes it a bit more difficult to recognize when we see the real thing.

Nonameddddddddd
Chart showing the angles to which Zoller is referring

Zoller suggests that “In the Age of Aquarius, religion will be humanistic love of fairness and justice. While feeding the people with Libran platitudes, the Scorpionic rulers will work tirelessly toward the realization of their goal – absolute power over others, as Leo is seen in position on the 7th house.” (The Use of Archetypes in Prediction .)

In this we can find either hope or despair. Venus is nicely placed in the Ninth House which informs the Tenth. Libra, however, is the Fall of the Sun. Venus will tickle the ear, but lack authenticity that comes with a stronger sense of self.  But the placement itself is benign, even if misguided. Optimism is a wonderful thing but that doesn’t mean the pessimist has nothing to be concerned about.

There are no goose stepping soldiers in Montreal, London, Berlin or Manhattan, but the police forces in many Western countries have become increasingly militarized, to the point that someone from a previous era wouldn’t recognize them as police at all.  The right to even peaceful protest has been greatly diminished. The implications that what used to be called citizens are now the *enemy.* The term used most often to refer to the population is “consumers.” They are guilty if the powers that be say that they are.

Again, the implication is that this world is in the hands of a small, but inestimably rich plutocracy. According to Oxfam less than 1% of people in the world have more than half of the wealth (The Guardian).

Even these figures distort the reality because the Plutocracy is a tiny fraction of that 1%. It has become virtually common knowledge that this wealth contributes in no small way to foreign and domestic policies in all of the most powerful countries. It’s called lobbying but in many cases it’s rewarding what is demanded and implied threats of consequences if the donor fails to get what he or she want. .

The International Monetary Fund which we are lead to believe is a benevolent institution devoted to the development of the third countries sound very humanitarian. However the IMF loans amounts the country cannot afford to pay back as the interest compounds. The recipient then has to offer its resources in lieu of payment. This keeps the third world in thrall while making the *humanitarian* bankers richer than ever.  There is nothing new about greed and injustice; but packaging these things as benign acts of altruism and humanitarianism soars to a new level of cynicism, which is decidedly Saturnine.

r-SOMALIA-FAMINE-WAR-CORRUPTION-large570w
Somalia – Famine, war and corruption – only one case of a failing state in massive refugee populations

I also concur with Zoller: “As the Aquarian dream of humanistic science and universal brotherhood is a vision of the world to come in Pisces, and realized in Aquarius, so too, the Aquarian avant-garde will look forward to an Aquarian Golden Age on the one hand, while the Aquarian technocrats will look for a world corporation to fossilize society into a rigid caste system run technologically.” The Use of Archetypes in Prediction

The key problem is that the proponents of an Aquarian Golden Age are blinded by unfounded optimism. Ironically perhaps, if they were more realistic they would see that the agenda of the Aquarian technocrats must be curbed, not just for a better world, but for our survival as a species.

The Aquarian technocrats require powerful militaries and endless wars which are justified as necessary for the security of the nation. For “our own good” we give up freedom and human rights,

With Mars on the MC the Scorpionic “overlords” will have no scruples about using whatever force they deem necessary to put down the perceived enemies of complete global domination. In the spirit of Aquarian egalitarianism, a one-world government sounds like a good idea. Just as George Orwell wrote in 1948, the world is divided into larger and larger sections, such as East Asian (“we have always been at war with East Asia”). Those not complying with the agenda are called terrorists – Orwell showed how the masses can be convinced that lies are true and visa versa.

Aquarius -by al-Sufi - 'Book of Fixed Stars'
Aquarius -by al-Sufi – ‘Book of Fixed Stars’

Neither will their domestic critics be spared. This is all-out fascism, largely concealed by the velvet glove. Wars are no longer fought for the nation-state in the West, They are fought mostly to further the interests of corporations and to make the very wealthy even wealthier.

Some will argue that there have always been wars and tyrants to send good people to fight them. However, the level and scope of what have become endless wars since the Age began, with the dominance shifting from Naval Power to Air Power, is truly unprecedented. To a very real way we have the technology to have wars that don’t end but become their own reason for being.

Predator drones are controlled from the other side of the world with impunity; but the target is people who are often unarmed, with no chance of self-defence They are destroyed without warning.. Arbitrary extrajudicial executions, carried out at the press of a button from CIA locations in California or Virginia, require no transparency or accountability. The operations are secret and above and beyond even international law.

The current President of the United States has insisted on his right to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, including the US, simply on the basis of alleged suspicion, This comes from a Democratic President with a Peace Prize. There is no trial required for this and often no specific charge at all, All youths 16 or older can be considered enemy combatants. Almost 200 children have been killed by drones in Pakistan and Yemen alone on his watch. This mechanical, high tech form of slaughtering people is particularly ghoulish. The victims are often innocent and remain anonymous in our media. The globalism so commonly espoused in the Western world is often blind to who it kills, except of course for those who ordered the strike.

Many scientists, political commentators, environmentalists and others now consider nuclear war the most likely existential threat to the human race and thousands of other species, even if the exchange were limited to India and Pakistan. A nuclear winter would ensue and it would be difficult to imagine a more Saturnine fate. Rapid climate change, accelerated by the burning of fossil fuel is a threat as well. An accidental or deliberate leak of biological agents having the affect of a rapidly spreading plague of pandemic proportions is often cited as close to the top of the list of doomsday scenarios. These are created, exacerbated or potentially ameliorated by human beings.

The astrological Saturn, by Hans Sebald Beham,d 1539
The astrological Saturn, by Hans Sebald Beham,d 1539

Optimists are becoming less numerous regarding outlooks for the future. As Zoller stated, the two malefics on the angles lacks the optimism and idealism of a Piscean Jupiter. Steven Hawking, one of our most brilliant and best-loved physicists, has said many times that the only chance of human survival is for us to leave this planet. We have the technology to do real harm to the environment on an epic scale. In the meantime, famine, so often a result of war is obscenely commonplace considering the tools we have at our disposal,

Just as Libra in the Ninth is good at whispering sweet nothings into the ears of the rich and powerful, so it is an opportunity for the renewed moral balance of a spiritual nature. Libra is after all the Exaltation of Saturn and the higher impulse is for true justice. We live in very dangerous times, If we can invoke the positive collective qualifies, we have an opportunity to take back what is ours. The real enemy is stealthy and the fist looks so much nicer in a velvet glove. Certainly denying or trivializing our powers of destruction will yield nothing but more of the same.

Saturn is the Reaper and what we reap is what we sow.  Saturn is all about consequences and revealing limitations, often in very challenging ways. It’s said that the path of good intentions leads to Hell. When humanism becomes a rallying cry for the availability of every human whim, it becomes something very different. The most poignant irony is that humanism, always attributed to Aquarius, spells the end of truly human life.

Clearly, this is no longer seen in an entirely negative light. For some, it’s the only solution. Why not have a humanoid that’s “Forever Twenty One” to do all the work and be able to function in the most extreme conditions, should they occur. Japan would prefer robots to immigrants in a rapidly ageing society. And of course, the humanoid has perfect manners and can teach Japanese in Viet Nam.

The Aquarius / Leo axis has brought a culture of conspicuous consumption, unparalleled technological innovation, the rewarding of selfishness and celebrity for its own sake (one can now be famous for being famous) as well as opportunities to defeat the most miserable illnesses, illiteracy and some forms of inequality. The scales offer us a choice and until we make that choice we will be ever hanging in the balance waiting for “Godot” the Aquarian messiah or the end of everything that matters.

Why Don’t Astrologers Listen to Scientists?

nnnNonafme

By Martien Hermes

Why don’t astrologers listen to scientists? Or: Why it is rational for astrologers to ignore scientific and statistical research into astrology.

“We feel that even if all possible scientific questions are answered, we have not even touched upon the problems of life.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein; Tractatus

“If science is rational, why is it so rare in human history? If faith is irrational, why have the great majority of people always preferred traditional beliefs to new ones obtained by independent, critical investigation?”
Theodore J. Everett

In 2000/2001 the publication of the book Astrology in the Year Zero again put a great emphasis on the – supposedly – scientific research and repudiation of astrology and astrological claims of being able to actually judge a horoscope. In the Netherlands this was soon followed by a small collection of lectures titled: “Astrology and science”. It contains a collection of four transcripts of lectures, published earlier in the astrological periodical (Astrofocus) of the Dutch Astrological Association. In both publications the scientists attack astrology and astrologers and – as usual – we get raked over the coals. In his award-winning book The Real Astrology, John Frawley merrily returns the favour and makes fun of the scientist’s claims and refutes them, under the header ‘some modern fallacies’ – of sceptics as well as astrologers. “’We tested 500 astrologers…’” he writes: “Competent astrologers are few and far between; but somehow the scientists who run the supposed tests on astrology seem to have no trouble in finding them. ‘We tested 50/500/5000 astrologers,’ they proclaim, ‘and found that only two of them knew what day of the week it was’. Exactly where they find these competent astrologers, unless they breed them like mice in their laboratories, is a mystery. There may – possibly – be 500 competent astrologers in the world; but it is most certain that scientists lack either the inclination or the necessary criteria to determine who they are. Even more certain is that most astrologers of any competence will have better things with which to occupy themselves than running through mazes for the edification of men in white coats.”

The debate between these two parties is an old one, and time and time again it is ignited by publications such as these. Both parties present their points of view as the ultimate proof of the validity of each of them, but very often the scientists seem to checkmate us astrologers by the sheer weight of the statistical methods that ‘seem to be on their side’. Any response an astrologer could ever hope to have, every argument that could be levelled against the apparently overwhelming evidence against the case of astrology seems to get swept away by this ultimate scientific weapon: statistical evidence. The wielding of this weapon is enough to silence every opposition, or so it seems. This article is intended to give astrologers some arguments in this debate with scientists. Often astrologers simply have nothing or very little to say to defend astrology against the claims of these scientists and the (predominantly) negative results of statistical and scientific research into astrology, which is so contrary to their everyday experience with it. In the eyes of the scientists (and even some astrologers) this might seem to be some sort of an acknowledgement of a possible ‘victory based upon solid statistical and scientific methods of proof- and truth-finding’, however, this silence on the astrologer’s part is probably based on more rational grounds than scientists might want to believe or have an ability to see. I will explain the reasons of this shortly.

My point in this article is that these scientists wield their statistics the same way they reproach astrologers of using their horoscopes. I argue that probably no amount of good or valid examples and horoscopic evidence will ever satisfy or convince these scientists, just as no astrologer will probably ever give in to the abstract conclusions drawn from ‘alien’ sources such as the so revered statistics, which can be – and have been – just as easily manipulated – or ‘(re-)interpreted’ one way or the other – as scientists claim astrologers do with their faulty horoscopes.

According to the editor of the Dutch booklet “Astrology and science”, Hans de Groot, the articles were particularly intended to “…remove the bias of astrologers that research into the truth of astrology is merely meant to attack astrology and its practitioners”.  The remark “…the truth of astrology …”, which is also the opening sentence of the ‘Bible’ of these scientists: Recent Advances in Natal Astrology, begs reaction. What exactly is truth? How can one define the (or even: a) ‘level of truth’ in anything? How does one ‘measure’ such a thing? Are they saying that scientists have an exclusive claim on what’s true and what is not? Can statistics actually measure this and a horoscope not?

I will do this by presenting an interesting theory by Theodore J. Everett on subjective rationality.”

Everett’s theory of ‘rational belief’

is not a disclaimer, as many scientists would have it, but simply another version of rationality, not a less valid one. I think his arguments are valid for our discussion with scientists. ”I think this answer is false. I see the conflict between science and faith as resulting not from the struggle of rational thought against irrational forces of conformity, but from a systematic tension between two aspects of rationality itself, which I call simply subjective and objective.
I make two main controversial claims. I claim that most people rationally (in the more basic, subjective sense) ought to believe in their local traditions, because that is what all of the people around them believe, and few individuals are in a total epimistic situation from within which they can reasonably contradict their neighbours. I also claims that most scientists and other modern intellectuals ought rationally (in the same sense) not to believe in their own theories, though it is often good for others in the long run when they do”. Accentuation by Everett.

His point is, that people have access to several and different ‘pools of evidence’ and that they can, and actually do, arrive at different conclusions, and other systems of belief or convictions than what is scientifically current, or what one believes in other religions – and that they arrive at these conclusion in a rational way. All these beliefs Everett calls subjectively rational instead of irrational. It can simply be equally rational for people to come up with different beliefs.

Does this imply that when everybody in my neighbourhood believes that the Martians are coming tomorrow, that we’re allowed to call this a subjectively rational belief that is true? No, because that would imply that anything could be posited by an appeal to this subjective rationality. According to Everett these beliefs have to be correctly drawn/concluded from all the available evidence in a particular ‘pool of evidence’, even if this pool of evidence differs from another one. Everett: “Consider an ordinary child’s belief in the existence of Santa Claus. It may seem that such children must be making some kind of juvenile mistake in reasoning to come to such a poorly evidenced conclusion. But from the subjective rational point of view, there is usually nothing wrong with them at all. They are not making any mistakes, giving the evidence they actually have.”  So the point for now is, that for scientists researching astrology statistics is their first order pool of evidence, for astrologers it is the horoscope.

Everett also makes the following distinction, which I think is relevant to our discussion with scientists. “Religion and faith are not coextensive. There are plenty of traditional and other second-hand beliefs that have nothing to do with religion, and there are sources of belief that are not second order [we will come to this ‘second-order-proof’ shortly-MH]. For example, many people claim to have their own, auto-empirical religious experiences, anywhere from hearing vividly the voice of God, tot the vague “oceanic feeling” that Sigmund Freud talks about. There are also some science-like ingredients in religion, including philosophical discussions among theologians. But the thing that really makes religion or religious faith what it is, an institution as opposed to a mere set of doctrines, is its transmission through testimony from one generation to another.” Accentuation by me.  I think that last remark applies to astrology as well as it does to science, although scientists generally would have it that astrology is by no means an institution but merely a set of irrational doctrines past on from generations of astrologers to another.

This argument – different pools of evidence – Everett applies to the difference of opinion between scientists and representatives of religions. I think it can also be used in our discussion with scientists, because implicitly or explicitly astrologers are being accused of irrational beliefs, or even irrational behaviour. Everett: “I want to argue that the main source of disagreement in many such questions is that people on the different sides have different total evidence. The people on both sides are drawing the conclusions that as individuals they rationally ought to draw from their evidence”. (Accentuation by Everett)  to believe. to understand or accept the evidence from the other party. Therefore cientists cannot reproach an astrologer for not arriving at the same conclusions about astrology based on statistics, or agreeing with them. The reason is that statistics are neither an astrological, nor a necessary or relevant pool of evidence for astrologers, a necessary or a relevant pool of evidence for them.  In the case of scientists who know or understand next to nothing about astrology, this is a very pertinent argument that explains why they seem to be just as deaf to our astrological arguments as we astrologers (who have no experience or knowledge whatsoever of statistics) are deaf to their scientific/statistic arguments.  The problem is: what to do with scientists who are or have been trained in astrology? They did have access to the same ‘pool of evidence’ as practising astrologers. Recent Advances in Natal Astrology is a book written by some of those  Astrologically trained scientists

Where astrologers in the Seventies and Eighties could still wield the argument that the scientists who rallied against astrology had very little knowledge of astrology and actually didn’t quite know what they were talking about, this doesn’t hold anymore. Experienced and well trained and informed astrologers are now scientifically testing astrology. Astrology in the Year Zero points this out.  Rudolf Smit was the founder of the Dutch Professional Astrological Society and wrote a very positive book about astrology; that is, before his ‘conversion’. Mather was an autodidact and Geoffrey Dean founded the Federation of Australian Astrologers WA branch. Both Smit and Dean received astrological awards; the AMR (Astrological Monthly Review) Commemorative Bi-Centennial award for contributions to astrology, especially for their efforts in researching astrology. These awards are quite prestigious.

Again, Everett has a point that explains why these scientists, for all their astrological training and experience, have no bigger claim to ‘the’ truth, than the average astrologer. This has to do with what Everett calls first-order evidence and second-order evidence.  “First-order evidence is whatever is available to an individual without dependence on the words of others. Whatever comes directly to me through my senses, memory and faculties of inference is my first-order pool of evidence. Second-order evidence is whatever one can access only indirectly, through reliance on the word of others. So if I hear someone say to me that it is raining in Paris, then I have first-order evidence that such-and-such a person has made the sound, ‘It is raining in Paris’, and I have second-order evidence that it is raining in Paris.  One’s first-order beliefs are then those based on first-order evidence, and one’s second-order beliefs are those based to a significant extent on testimony.  First- and second-order rationality may then be defined as the correct reliance on first- and second-order evidence to form first- and second-order beliefs.”

This argument can explain – perhaps to the amazement of scientists – why astrologers care so little about the results of statistical and other scientific research into astrology. The reason is simply that their astrological training, and further experience with doing astrological consultations, and all the experience gathered by any astrologer, is his/her first-order pool of evidence for the ‘truth’ of astrology. The astrologer sees, hears and lives – first hand – the way that astrology actually works. Statistics, for an astrologer, is probably never quite able to replace these first-order pools of astrological evidence; hence statistics are an alien, second-order pool of evidence for astrologers. The only reason an astrologer would perhaps change his mind about the truth of astrology on account of scientific evidence would be – according to Everett – if he thinks that the person or status of the scientist(s) in question – or his particular scientific bent or speciality – is authoritative to such an extent, that he believes him on his word; which makes this a second-order belief. order pool of evidence for an astrologer, even if it is wielded by a (former) astrologer. order pool of evidence, but this authority cannot be claimed by these scientists because they were once astrologers.  Convincing is that pool of evidence you believe in; which you grant authority So, what happens if one starts to doubt astrology? For instance because of the much acclaimed ‘good consultation based on a wrong chart’, or the alleged unanimously negative results of statistical research into the claims of astrologers?  Everett says that in case of a convincing pile of first-order evidence (i.e. my own experience as an astrologer) and a lot of conflicting second-order evidence (i.e. what these scientists say about astrology) it is at long last the individual who makes the choice which pool of evidence he accepts or ‘believes’, or grants most authority.

Everett: “Ironically, widespread attacks [like those of these scientists on the truth of astrology] on the rationality of [the astrological] faith will tend to push some people out of this uncertain state by second-order means alone [the ‘word of mouth’ of these scientists, their statistical evidence], while pushing others into it.” Accentuation by me.  Rudolf Smit is, among others, an example of the first. Because of conflicting evidence he was pushed out of astrology. He started out as an amateur astronomer, who later became a zealous astrologer. Apparently some first-order pool of evidence (his own experience with astrology and consultations I gather) led him to strongly ‘believe’ in astrology; he wrote a jubilant book about it; founded the Dutch Professional Astrological Society, etc.. But certain experiences (‘a good consultation based upon a wrong chart’ perhaps?) and perhaps other doubts made him ‘choose’ the pool of evidence of the other belief – which where in the long run decisive for him – science and statistics. Perhaps Smit was conditioned by his (scientific) education and his hobby (astronomy) to ultimately give greater weight to this pool of evidence when faced with doubts about astrology (as we all have now and then I guess). Education might be an important factor in what one decides as being authoritative in the longer run.

Just as Smit is a good example of an astrologer who, because of widespread attacks, was driven out of astrology, I personally am an example of an astrologer who was driven further into it, by these widespread attacks. Confronted on the one hand with scientific and statistical criticism of the (modern) astrology I was practising at the time (as opposed to astrology as such), and on the other hand my own criticism of the (nearly) exclusive grounding of modern astrology on psychological (or rather psychoanalytical) theories alone, I became – according to many – a ‘fundamentalist’ astrologer. Calling myself a traditional or classical astrologer no less, founding my practice on what old astrological lore and doctrines the ‘churchfathers’ left to posterity (‘Saint’ Vettius Valens, ‘Saint’ Bonatus, ‘Saint’ William Lilly, ‘Saint’ Morinus et cetera). My ‘loss of faith’ in modern astrology as a philosophy, in modern astrological practice, modern astrological doctrines and latter day astrological authorities, at first made me doubt astrology in its entirety (just as seems to have been the case with Smit c.s.), but after that I gradually started reconsidering exactly what astrology is (and was) and began doing research on the history of astrology: I ended up granting authority to astrologers of old, and not to the scientists and their arguments. I was pushed further into astrology, not out of it.
According to Everett, this is just as rational a choice as Smit’s; we just took other pools of evidence as authoritative.

So what it comes down to is that in this kind of debate it’s the individual who ultimately makes a choice in what he or she considers to be logical, ‘rational’ or decisive which, in the case of first-order evidence, depends on direct personal experience (which is horoscopy for astrologers, statistics for scientists); and in case of second-order evidence (i.e. does the astrologer believe the conclusions and reasoning of the scientist, or vice versa?) this always depends on the authority one grants to the person or method and/or its status (‘science’; ‘statistics’; ‘astrology’; ‘horoscopy’). Once your mind is made up – perhaps anew – that is what you probably stick to. anew, whereby they tend to notice those facts and arguments which suit their case, and pass over inconvenient facts and arguments. As Elwell has shown, Dean c.s. are particularly apt, virulent and deceiving in this.  Good consultations with wrong charts; good statistics with wrong conclusions

Scientists in fact do make ‘choices’ in what they consider authoritative evidence against astrology, and these choices are based on assumptions beforehand, not concluded after scientific testing or methods have lifted them above the everyday level of this ‘irrational belief in astrology’. This can perhaps be illustrated by the following.  Smit/Dean c.s. often wield the argument that it is indeed strange that astrologers sometimes have excellent consultations based upon wrong charts: “How is it possible to make good delineations based upon wrong charts?” Smit askes himself.  What is interesting however is that this (seemingly) didn’t prompt Smit to ask questions about – for example – the tenets of the (modern) astrology he was practising, or the way he was doing consultations (because, I’ve said it before: modern astrology has become a very fluent method of psychoanalytical discourse about life and individuals, a narrative technique, a new ‘talking cure’ that during a consultation can completely break away from any foundation in accurate chartfactors or analysis.) No, it prompted Smit to doubt astrology and horoscopy wholesale. For Smit as well as Dean these were experiences that finally made them decide to break with astrology, and/or to research it more strictly/severely. But, we could justifiably ask them: since it is proven that scientists have made (many) false assumptions and arrived at wrong conclusion based upon valid statistics, and conversely, have based decisive conclusions or hypotheses upon wrong or misinterpreted statistics, why then didn’t they forsake science as method of research? Why has the experience of poorly interpreted statistics (just as is the case with these ‘wrong charts’) which led to scientifically satisfying conclusions, not put them off science?

The answer must be that these scientists beforehand chose to ‘believe’ statistics (in this case, ‘over horoscopic evidence’); they grant (exclusive) authority to it and no longer to astrology. So, for them it’s only natural to continue to renounce astrology because it has ceased to hold any authority for them (if it really ever had any, that is). They’ve granted authority to the pool of evidence which is called statistics (or other scientific methods of research or reasoning) and they constantly level these methods against whatever arguments or horoscopic evidence astrologers have. This is why Smit c.s can constantly repeat his scientific-magical incantation: that “There is no scientific proof for Astrology”. But this may be read as: “For scientists, based upon their means of measuring and evaluating things, astrology has never been proven”. To which the following disclaimer can be added: “But this doesn’t actually mean anything, except when you are a scientist, and, if one is neither an astrologer nor a scientist, one can take this statement at face value and do with it as one pleases. Better not take this as ultimate truth on astrology. Please see your local astrologer for a second opinion”. So, based upon this argument – a wrong chart yielding good results – scientists cannot maintain that astrologers should therefore forsake astrology, or that astrology is defective and not reliable in what it claims to be able to do, because the same can be argued regarding science and (one of) its instrument: statistics.

Real astrology has yet to be researched

My second position is that “Real astrology has yet to be researched; i.e., it hasn’t been researched at all.”

“If we want to prove that astrology really works, we will have to begin by studying astrology anew.” Robert Hand

“Modern Western astrology is the product of the late 19th century rescension of the art. The astrology re-introduced to the west at that time was a considerably watered down version of the art adapted to what was then believed to be the exigencies of the contemporary education and economics. The astrological practice in the 17th century (prior to the great hiatus) was a more demanding science.”-  Robert Zoller

The book, or rather the pamphlet and model for scientific research into astrology; Recent Advances, opens (literally on page zero) with the remark that: “In 1900 astrology was effectively medieval”. This remark of course is not correct at all, but the authors obviously consider this to be a self-evident disclaimer (as does many a modern astrologer), urging them to do definitive and final research on the supposed or acclaimed innovations and practices of modern astrologers from the period 1900 up until 1976. Their comments in “Astrology in the year Zero”, can be viewed as their latest update on the research broken of in 1976. And, as was to be expected in view of the partiality of this research group (the Dean-circus as Elwell calls it), there is little hope for astrology and astrologers, according to their (continued) findings. Now, a valid question to ask oneself is, what was it exactly that was researched by these scientists? The answer they themselves offer is: modern astrology, which is the ‘astrology after the deluge’ that Zoller refers to; the one that evolved ‘after the great hiatus’. So apparently, Recent Advances obviously limited its research of astrology to the 20th century reformulation and reinterpretation of its doctrine(s).

If one were to take this opening remark (“In 1900 astrology was effectively medieval”) as authoritative, or, if one were to grant authority to the scientific research it resulted in, this would actually underpin my second thesis, that real astrology has yet to be (scientifically) researched, which of course implies that I consider traditional astrology (pre 18th century) to be the real stuff.  This is not the place to recollect everything that happened to astrology during the 19th and 20th centuries, nor is the criticism I now raise meant to deny or refute the positive effects of using modern counselling in unison with astrology to meet the needs of modern clientele during a consultation (needs which are often formulated by the astrologers rather than their clients). But there is indeed a need for reclaiming our astrological heritage, as was – and still is – done by Zoller, Schmidt, Hand and many others. I think it is a (very) necessary stage in re-valuing the actual know-how of astrology as a science (sorry scientists).

The reason for this is the simple fact that methods of judgement and delineation between modern and traditional astrology differ strongly, and this difference cannot be whitewashed by claiming that they are reflecting a necessary, conscious or positive updating of a depreciated …medieval version… of astrology. If this difference in methods and opinions in our art plays an important role in the way astrological indications are interpreted and conceptualised, then we’re back to the authority question as posed by Everett: which astrologers and astrological texts do we grant authority?

Temperament

Traditional astrologers repeatedly point out the fact that modern astrology resembles her traditional roots and doctrines in almost nothing, especially regarding applied methods and techniques. There are some very fundamental and sometimes even disturbing differences in methods applied by ancients and moderns in locating specific significators for any given astrological subject. I always tell my students that the two things that differ mostly between modern and traditional astrology is, first, the methods of locating specific significators for any given subject; and second, the almost rigidly consistent way of judging, delineating and interpreting these significators once they’re found, to draw as realistic conclusions as are possible, as opposed to more symbolic speculation of all the things they might possibly mean. Which is of course saying that they differ completely.

An example of this is the way modern astrology tries to establish the distribution of the four elements and therefore what type the native is. This is, or should be, a very important procedure – especially for medical and Jungian astrologers – upon which, in case of the latter, rest some very basic assumptions regarding the ‘mode’ of interaction with, and contents of – the unconscious.. However, close examination of traditional texts on this procedure differ significantly from the way this is done nowadays.

The traditional method focuses on what could be called ‘the significators of character/personality or the individuals psyche’, which is always a limited number of planets, as opposed to most modern methods which use all the planets and the signs they are in, irrespective of their specific function in the fore lying horoscope. The most simplistic modern version of this procedure (there are others) is to simply count the number of planets in any given element and then grant the one which has the most ‘counters’ primacy over the other three. Now, granting modern planets Pluto, Uranus and Neptune an equally important role in this as the traditional planets, reflects perhaps the overbearing attention these new planets have gained, but remains a firm point of discussion.

As John Frawley has indicated, a comparison between modern and traditional methods reveals a telling difference in the case of Hitler; modern astrology would necessarily have to regard him, and interpret his character, as an ‘earth-type’; but traditional methods reveal he is strongly choleric. For Jung and his astrological descendants these two elements are literally opposites of each other. If fire is dominant, then earth needs must be the inferior i.e. the (more) unconscious function in his psychological make-up, all of which carries rather important implications regarding the contents of Hitler’s unconscious.

I do not know of any attempt to delineate Hitler’s temperament using this Astro-Jungian hypothesis, but I suspect such an analysis would succeed in convincingly ‘proving’ that Hitler was indeed a strong earth type, perhaps somewhere along the lines of: ‘by being so destructive (WW2, Blitzkrieg strategies), Hitler proved that he could not cope with his inferior fire-element (because of the many faster and therefore personal planets in earth signs, earth would strongly dominate as his superior function) and because he would by necessity need to repress all to overt expressions of this inferior function of fire (because, according to Jung, this is what we all do with the inferior function in order to prevent a difficult and disturbed adaptation to the world around us, which is the task of the superior function), it (the unconscious fire-element) could – and perhaps would – gain autonomy in his personal (or even his collective) unconscious, which might then result in destructive ‘outbursts’ of all this repressed fire into consciousness and reality’. No doubt Hitler’s health problems (body is matter = earth), his vegetarianism (meat is often seen as a typical food of the fire element in modern astrology, hence his aversion to it), the fact that the colour brown played such an interesting role in his life (born in Braunau, wearing a brown uniform all the time), would all be lined up as arguments signifying the strong domination of the earth element. Problem is however, that a lot of Hitler’s problems could just as easily be explained by earth being his inferior function.

Now I do not propose to challenge Jung’s theory here, but anyone can understand that for such important issues – someone’s psychological makeup – it is at least necessary to have (some sort of) a communis opinio, an agreement on how to correctly achieve a method of determining elementary type. If modern astrologers are capable of reformulating and interpreting Hitler’s biography so that it convincingly supports the idea that he was indeed an earth-type and not a choleric (as they are very well able to do), then there is something fundamentally wrong: either their method of determining the type is at fault; or they are not able to recognise these types in reality or in someone’s biography (and thus solely rely on Jung’s ideas and the astrological correlative thereof).  The third reason is of course that astrology today is a fluent method of psychoanalytical and New Age discourse about life and individuals that does not necessarily have to rely on accurate analysis and evaluation of chart factors.  And this difference – establishing the native’s type – is only one of the many differences that divide modern and traditional astrology. As shown, it is a very basic one. There are many, many more.

Conclusion

The question one has to ask – in view of Everett’s conclusion that in the case of conflicting evidence (Frawley’s case of Hitler, traditional astrological lore versus modern astrological lore) one chooses the persons and/or pools of evidence one regards as authoritative or convincing—is (and I state this in a rather black and white mode): given the differences in methods, tools and techniques, to what astrology and or astrologer(s) does one grant authority? To the ‘strongly watered down version’ of modern astrology, or to traditional astrologers who actually did live and work in the heydays of astrological science? Most modern astrologers have built their astrology on what has been proven to be an intensive, fragmented, and in some cases even wrong reconstruction of traditional astrology.

In view of the research in traditional astrology since the 1990’ies done by astrologers, the opening statement of Recent Advances that “In 1900 astrology was effectively medieval”, is not only demonstrably wrong, it also underpins the citations of Hand and Zoller. Because if astrology was indeed based on its medieval pedestal, perhaps then the research into the truth of astrology would have yielded other, and possibly more positive, results. But I do not expect scientists of the breed of Dean c.s. to acknowledge this. Their problems with astrology have to do with fundamental differences of opinion of what (a) ‘real’ science is. We should not let that be an obstacle in learning astrology.

FINIS

I  I thank Deborah Young for editing this article, if any mistakes are left, they are mine, not hers.

2 The rationality of science and the rationality of faith. The journal of PHILOSOPHY, volume XCVIII, number 1, January 2001; page 19-42.

3 Phillipson, Garry (2000).  Astrology in the Year Zero. Flare Publications, London.

4  Astrologie en Wetenschap, lezingenbundel. Een uitgave van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van de Astrologie.

5 Frawley, John (2000) The Real Astrology. Apprentice Books, London, pgs. 185/186.

6 For some excellent responses to the scientists’ claims, the reader is wholeheartedly referred to two articles to be found on the website of Garry Phillipson (http://http://www.astrozero.co.uk). “The researchers researched: A reply to the cynics” by Dennis Elwell; and: “Prejudice in Astrological Research”, by Mike Harding. researchers researched: A reply to the cynics” by Dennis Elwell. Therefore I say ‘these scientists’ as opposed to scientists in general. assumptions a robot has to make (as do human beings) before it can even move or react to any input it gets. A robot rationally checking every sort of input before it reacted to it (the scientific ‘ideal’) didn’t move or visually ‘do’ anything; it just sat there rationally checking and rechecking all his input, which of course didn’t look very rational or intelligent at all. So much for pure rationality as the ultimate guideline of reasonable mankind or rationally functioning individuals. backed-up, an astrological consultation would indeed be very short. Somewhere along the lines of: “according to the placement of Mars in the first sector of your horoscope, you might be a good and perhaps successful athlete”, end of consultation. in the book. Setting aside his few admitted lapses, a process is at work within both sceptics and believers whereby they tend to notice those facts and arguments which suit their case, and pass over inconvenient facts and arguments. This has been called the hermeneutic circle, a self-reinforcing process in which we are all to some extent trapped. Alfred Adler called it ‘teleological apperception’, meaning that when we have an end in view, a commitment to some purpose, we unconsciously select what suits that purpose. Truth and objectivity become a secondary consideration, and we may unwittingly mislead others, as well as ourselves.” way astrology is used as a means of “talking” about individuals and their psyche. In this sense, astrology has become a method of psychoanalytical discourse about life and individuals, a narrative technique, a new ‘talking cure’.

We see this in the, already mentioned, expanding psychological verbalisation of astrological symbols which needs none of the more sophisticated classical methods of evaluating planets, signs and houses, but immediately starts discoursing about what a planet in a sign has to say about this or that inner ‘drive’. appreciate this side of modern astrological practice. They acknowledge and sometimes even applaud positive effects of astrological consultations, but according to them, we should not fool ourselves in believing this is somehow a validation of astrology. This is a standard line for them, it’s always something else that’s working here, producing these positive results, it never is astrology. This is the equivalent of saying: “Sorry, your rabbit’s dead, but hey, you can still play with it!” act as functions of the psyche. They can be defined as separate functions because, again according to Jung, they ‘cannot be reduced to each other’. The four functions: the intuitive function (‘our’ fire), the sensory function (earth) and thinking (air) and feeling (water), can be divided into two groups; rational functions and irrational functions. Contrary to what one might suspect Jung calls thinking and feeling the ‘rational’ functions, and intuition and sensation ‘irrational’.

Rational meaning here that these elements/functions place a ‘barrier’ (or norm) between the impressions they receive from the outside world (which is why they are the rational functions, because this implies a more or less conscious act, although not necessarily perceived as one), as opposed to intuition and sensation, which rely on totally unrestrained and uninterrupted impression of input from the outside world, without a conscious ‘barrier’. The two functions/elements of each group are opposed to each other; the intuitive function (fire) is the exact opposite of the sensory function (earth), and the same for thinking (air) and feeling (water); they exclude each other. So the process or function of feeling interrupts the process of function of thinking, the same goes for intuition and sensation. Now, according to Jung, what happens to us as individuals when we are young is, that one of these functions gains supremacy over the other three.

The stronger function is the one the individual uses (mainly) to interpret, react to, and understand his environment. We adapt to our environment by means of this function and therefore it is an important part of our psychological make-up and inventory, our consciousness and our ego. This function becomes the most ‘socialized’, and therefore most civilized, function, because it is the function that is best ‘trained’ in our everyday social life, which, for the romantic and revolutionary Jung, was also equivalent to a somewhat boring bourgeois mentality. Jung calls it the superior function. Now, because of the incompatibility of the superior function with it’s opposite of the same category (i.e. his rational or irrational partner), this (other) function regresses into the unconscious.

What happens to this ‘inferior’ function is, that it not only is the gateway to the (personal) unconscious, but can also strongly disrupt the superior function because it is the less adapted function. Because of this ‘less socialized’ nature of this inferior function it can, on the one hand, play a very significant role in revitalizing the conscious part of our psyche (in the opinion of Jung-the-romantic) by interrupting an all to rigorous adaptation to the outside world (which appealed to Jung-the-Nietzschean-revolutionary). On the other hand, this can also be exactly the problem with the inferior function, because these interruptions can actually destroy our consciousness and put us in a deep crisis (which was the concern of Jung-the-psychologist) because it can destroy (parts) of our consciousness, self-image and our ego. Ultimately, with the passing of time, as we grow as individuals and mature, all four of these functions should (ideally) be put into some kind of balance, granting superiority to neither of them, although this can be quite a difficult task. – somewhat different – version of this can be reconstructed from a text from Avraham Ibn-Ezra as given by Zoller in his DMA course (which I did for my Magazine “Anima Astrologiæ” issue 3 july 2001); this is more or less the same method as Zoller uses I’m told. Frawley’s method and Ezra’s agreed in the case of Hilter.

An Introduction to Delineation of the Profession

Do not blindly follow the rules!

 «We are looking for a rational means of leading us in the right direction to come up with the right conclusions.» – Robert Zoller

When it comes to delineating the profession, we are faced with problems with which our predecessors were not faced. The professions available to people today are numerous. Many jobs are simply spin-offs or alterations of other professions which can cause problems for the astrologer and make it difficult to distinguish one from the other. For example take my profession, how do you distinguish and interior designer from an architect or building engineer. All three of these professions share construction knowledge and experience which is also common to the construction labourer! While Venus is generally more prominent in the charts of interior designers than say construction workers, architects, or engineers, this in itself is not enough since we find the same true with painters who may also fall within the category of construction workers.

The interior designer is usually more involved with the finish work, decorating, furnishings etc., than with the more mechanical structure of the building. But then we find architects who are employed in planning departments as an interior designer. What we end up with is that we have to say such things as, “Your chart indicates your profession is related to the building trades.” But in that case, the delineation covers everything from demolition to carpentry, to electricians, plumbers, painters, architect, engineer and interior designer!

In the same manner there are professional financiers who work with money and we are often faced with the job of distinguishing these people in their different guises e.g. the pawnbroker, loan shark, merchant banker, stock broker, teller, accountant etc. Then when we have determined the category (and this is not helped by the specialisation within professions) we are faced with the further need for distinction. How do you distinguish the everyday bank manager from the Rothchilds or Morgans? How do we distinguish the bank teller from the bank owner?

How does one distinguish the differences between a soldier and a bandit or between the head of a band of pirates and a regular king? To the British, Washington, Jefferson et al, was no more than renegades, brigands and terrorists who afterwards became statesmen and founders of a new nation! Or Ariel Sharon, who was viewed by many as nothing more than a terrorist; blowing up hotels, wiping out refugee camps, and had innocent people murdered and yet became the Prime Minister of Israel!

Then there is the more modern problem that we may have more than one profession in our lifetime! I spent years as a missionary, have worked as a common construction worker, worked in the retail clothing business, have been a bartender and restaurant co-worker, acquired my living through music, have been a building project leader, engineer in the ship industry,  involved in project development as an engineer and now working in city development! So variations of profession within one person’s lifetime are also something that we, as astrologers, have to deal with. As a practicing astrologer, sooner or later you will be asked, “When will I have what profession?” Right now, we will deal with the classical and medieval considerations of delineating the “mastery” or profession an individual has their entire life, i.e. the skill they have which will always be there in the background throughout their entire life. Like myself, I did not always give vent to that skill and when I did not, this was reflected in my professional life (in the modern sense). There may be periods when an individual does other things, but the theme or mastery will always be there seeking expression. So in this sense, we are viewing profession slightly different from the more modern viewpoint. We have to adopt the medieval astrologer’s viewpoint which is that the profession or theme is actually the native’s function and his/her place in society.

In contrast to the middle ages where an individual did not lightly change professions, today the economy often forces us to re-train as the economic circumstances change which often forces us to look for a new job. While many more opportunities are open to us today, we nonetheless will have some over-riding quality that dominates our professional picture even when we are forced to change jobs or careers frequently. It is true that many will hold one job for many years, like my stepfather who worked in construction nearly his entire life! Many change jobs but not radically, remaining in the same field while others change jobs radically going from one field to another.

As I already mentioned at the beginning, the professional theme has parameters that define certain aptitudes and that list of aptitudes is an expression of this or that planet and if these planets are in certain places and ruling certain places they become professional significators showing the skills the native will use in his or her profession no matter what appellation we may give that profession. In the practice of astrology, it will be necessary to say when the native will change jobs or make a radical change from one field to another. That is a matter of prediction and is based on this first delineation of professional significators. That is something we will have to address later. For now, I am only dealing with the delineation of what work, what kind of profession or mastery is shown in the nativity and that is with the provision being that generally, people stay with their natal patterns.

Modern society has brought complexity and specialisation. There are numerous kinds of physicians, physicists, dentists etc. Consequently, we as astrologers may not attempt to declare the name or title of the job the native will pursue. We may not declare, “This woman is a plastic surgeon,” or, “This man is a foreign car specialist.” It is enough that we say, “Mercury is your professional significator. Mercury makes geometers, designers, scribes and all who make a livelihood from interpretations, explanations, record keeping etc.” For all the reasons above and more, I recommend that you start with this more general approach rather than jumping in and immediately try to be too specific when determining the profession. So the question is, can we get more specific? And if so, how do we do so?

There are several things we have to consider when delineating a person’s vocation and profession.

1. The natives’ physical qualities (health) and natural “qualities of the soul” (i.e. his natural aptitudes), the temperament[1] and modal type,[2] and finally the native’s own motivations (principally the Almuten Figuris and Lot of Spirit). Most of these considerations are based around the Ascendant sign, the planets in the Ascendant or aspecting the ascendant and the rulers of the ascendant.

2. The natives’ social status – Is the native born in difficulty (lower social status)? Is he/she born in a middleclass? Upper class? Does the chart indicate social mobility for the native, i.e. is there indication the native moves up, down or stays within his/her social rank.

3. The natives education – in what way is their education connected to profession if at all. Is there a higher education for the native or is the education normal or interrupted etc.

4. Finally we determine a professional significator(s) or Almuten of the vocation and what vocational class the native will belong with the significations of the 10th.

As you can see, while the 4th point is probably the most important indication, it will be very much limited or enhanced by the other 3 factors. We could say that the first three points are parameters of the 4th point! It is much more difficult for someone born and raised in an poor inner city to achieve a vocation and fruitful profession than another who is born in another social rank for example. Also, it is easier or more difficult for the profession with regards to both the person’s natural aptitudes and education. There is a harmony to all of these points that cooperate together to produce what the native will or will not do or accomplish!

It is evident there are other delineations that one needs to make before a final delineation of profession and vocation can be made. As earlier mentioned, temperament and modal type for example, needs to be delineated. There are many methods advocated for delineating temperament. Some are good and some are useless considerations that lead one away from simplicity! There are also diverse and multitudinous theories concerning the Almuten Figuris or Lord of the Geniture. Again, I keep things simple and I avoid straying into the slippery world of “psychology”.

The first three points then ought to be delineated before the 4th in order to understand what parameters define the profession and vocation!


[1] i.e. choleric, sanguine, melancholic or phlegmatic

[2] vital, mental or motive

The Triplicity Method of Andarzhagar related by Al-Qbisi

Copyright Clélia Romano, DMA
April 2013

Documento3

Dorotheus was the first Hellenistic author to use the planets´ triplicities to give signs of events. Other authors before him, without exception, used only the triplicity of the luminary of the sect as part of a specific technique: assessing the eminence of the chart.

In addition to that, Hellenistic astrology pre-Dorotheus did not divide life into three phases, but two, whose border was unclear: the first lord of the triplicity, depending on whether the nativity was during the day or night, ruled the first half of life, while the second lord ruled the second half. The third lord of triplicity acted throughout life as a participant along with the other two.

Based certainly on Dorotheus, subsequent authors extensively used the lords of triplicity of each house and used them as giving signs of the three parts of life. Generally, each ruler of the triplicity relates to a time period of approximately 1/3 of life, namely between 25 and 30 years.

All we know about Al-Andarzaghar and his triplicities rulers is based in Al-Qabisi´s work translated into English from Arabic and Latin by Charles Burnett, Keiji Yamamoto and Michio Yano.

According to Prof. Pingree, al-Andarzaghar lived during the Sassanid period (224-637 AD):
A Persian astrologer from the Sassanid period beyond Buzurjmihr, who Arab authors often refer to, of course, although Zaradusht and Jamasp were older, was al-Andarzaghar, that is, the advisor (of Pahlavi handarzgar), a scholar named Zadanfarrukh.”
Apparently Al-Andarzhagar lived between Buzurjmihr (6th century) and Masha’allah (8th century),

He provided a different meaning for each triplicity ruler of any house and therein lies its uniqueness. But Bonatti and certainly Robert Zoller understood the use of the technique in a more complex way.
This article has the purpose to investigate what exactly is known of Andarzhagar by citing Al-Qbisi, which ideas about triplicity he spread and why an eminent author such as Bonatti deduced that each meaning of a triplicity ruler had to be circumscribed only to a third of life.

First, one may wonder what was the reason why Al-Andarzhagar found that a new system should be developed, that is, giving each triplicity ruler significance.
It is true that there are many meanings associated with each house and, therefore, the information on different themes should be often drawn from the same planetary significators. This may cause some problems, but nevertheless it is possible to avoid inconveniences if the astrologer employs a second range of significators. These could be planets with natural association with the theme or any lot.

Both solutions have been widely used in the Hellenistic period. However, Al-Andarzaghar seems to have found it necessary to link a meaning to each of the triplicity rulers.

From then on, that is, from what Alchabitius reports, it represented a new step to extend the significance of each triplicity lord to certain time, that time being a third of life. Thus there was a mix between the concepts of Dorotheus, linking the triplicity rulers to a time of life and those of Andarzhagar, linking each ruler to a meaning. This hybrid form appears in the text of Bonatti and very clearly in the interpretation of the contemporary Latin scholar Robert Zoller.

Bonatti, based on Alchabitius, cites Al-Andarzaghar, and on page 103, Treatise II, Book of Astronomy,translated by Benjamin Dykes PHD, the author says “And consider in what part of life this will happen to him: because the first lord of this triplicity signifies that this would happen to the native in the first one-third of this life, and the second in the second, and the third, as we said in the other houses
Thus in the case of House 4, for example, Andarzhagar says that the first triplicity ruler represents the parents, the second represents lands and the third, the end of things. Both Bonatti, which was based on a citation by Alcabitius, and Robert Zoller, based on Bonatti, understand that the first triplicity ruler of the 4th House represents the father in the first part of life. As Andarzhagar assigns the second triplicity ruler to the subject lands and cities, such planet would give testimony of this issue in the second part of life. As to Andarzhagar, the third triplicity ruler of the 4th House represents the end of things and prisons they seek testimonies of such things in the third part of life.
Robert Zoller, pioneer in translating Bonatti from Latin into English, says in his Lesson Eight of the Diploma Course in Medieval Astrology, page 25:

(Quote)
Alezdegoz’s instruction with regard to the triplicity rulers and the 3 thirds of life is valuable. His way of dividing up the houses into three conceptual levels of delineation: e.g., the first ruler of the triplicity of the 7th house signifying women, the second contentions and so on, and the third associations, is useful. The student ought, after assimilating the information in this lesson to investigate these instructions of Alezdegoz both as pertains to the temporal and as to the 3-fold signification of the houses.”
(End Quote)

Now, in the case of the 8th House, since for Alezdegoz or Andarzhagar it represents death in the first part of life, old things in the second part of life, and what is inherited from the dead on the third part of life, how do we understand death in the third part of life?
On the other hand, as we will see ahead, in Alchabitius’s text there is nothing that leads us to admit that Andarzhagar has delimited the meaning of each triplicity to only a third part life. The idea is, in my view, derived from a corruption of Alchabitius’ text.

In order to exemplify the technique suggested by Bonatti and Zoller, I shall give a practical example through which we can perceive how the delineation will be limited if each stage of life is referred to one triplicity ruler.

To make use of the technique, it is necessary to observe if the nativity is diurnal or nocturnal. In the case of a diurnal nativity, the first third of life would be ruled by the first lord of triplicity, the second third by the second lord and the last third by the third lord. The opposite happens if the nativity is nocturnal, when we would begin by the second triplicity ruler, and then would use the first ruler and, lastly, the participant ruler related to the third part of life. So far, nothing differs from Dorotheus.

Now we shall enter directly into Andarzagar’s method as suggested by Bonatti. Let’s see a practical example:Chico_vectorized

The astrological chart above belongs to one of the most highly regarded Brazilian mediums, a person who had many health problems, was practically blind, especially in the latter part of life, psychographed numerous letters and books dictated by entities and is considered by many a true saint.

Let’s outline the 4th House, whose ruler is Mars:

Andarzaghar tells us:

the first lord of the triplicity of the place of fathers indicates fathers, the second countries and lands, the third outcomes of the matter and prison.”

As it is a nocturnal nativity, in the first part of life Jupiter will be the ruler because it is the lord of the nocturnal fire triplicity (Aries in the 4th House). Jupiter is a benefic in the 9th House by division and in the 10th House by whole signs, but it is retrograde and tending to cadence. Therefore, we say that parents (we are delineating the 4th House) did not represent a positive experience in the first part of life. The second planet that gives testimony to the 4th House in the second part of life is the Sun, the second ruler of the nocturnal triplicity. The Sun is cadent by division and by whole signs is in the 4th House, an angular house. Being essentially dignified, it can moderately supply issues that concern land (“the second, countries and lands“). In the third part of life (the third<refer to>outcomes of the matter and prison), Saturn is the ruler: Saturn is strong by house, it is angular, but is in its fall, therefore the third part of life regarding the end of things and prisons means that there will be many problems, because Saturn has dignities in 1-the 12th House, where the Moon is, 2-in the Ascendant and 3-in the 2nd House.

 We shall research now the 9th House, (following Al-Andarzhagar “the first lord of the triplicity of the place of the journey Indicates the journey and its suitability, the second religion and religious observance, the eminence <one obtains> in this, and the form <the eminence> it takes, the third is the indicator of science, vision, stars (astrology), and omens and truth and falsehood in this”.)

Being the cusp in Virgo, in the first part of life, the Moon is the ruler. It indicates limitations since it is in detriment and by division in the 12th House: travel is not a part of the native’s life in the first part of life. In the second part of life, Venus is the ruler, and since it is in the second house, a productive house, we see that religion and religious observance, as well as eminence, is achieved, but because Venus is under Saturn’s domain which is in the 4th House, this eminence occurs within the family and does not last long, because Saturn promises more than it can deliver; in the third part of life Mars is the ruler and <science, omens and visions, the truth or falsehood of this> will be discovered by the situation of Mars. Mars is in the 5th House, a productive house, in trine with Jupiter in the 9th House, but the reception of both is negative. By whole signs, Jupiter is in the 10th House and Mars in the 6th House, which would provide us with a link between disease, communication[1] and the profession.

Some questions remain to be answered: what is done of travel in the second and third part of life? And of the question of the father? On the other hand, the native was sickly and psychic all his life not only during the last part of it. Jupiter is in the house of Venus, so we can see the correlation between views, religion and omens, with the 2th House in the second part of life. However, certainly mediumship and gifts helped the native to survive throughout his whole adult life.

Let’s refer to Alchabitius and verify what is contained in his book about the triplicities in Al-Andarzhagar.

We found in Chapter 1, 320 onwards, the following descriptions:

1st House-Al-Andarzagar said in his Nativities, that the first lord of the triplicity of the ascendant indicates the life and the nature of the native and of the querist, his pleasures I and desire, what he likes and dislikes, and what he obtains of good and  bad at  the  beginning of his life.  The second lord of the triplicity indicates life, body, strength  and  the middle of life. The third lord of the triplicity indicates what the <first> two lords of the <place> indicate and the matter at death.

2nd House- Al-Andarzagar said :see which of the lords of the triplicity of the place of property-the first, the second or the third is stronger  and better  in its disposition and its place;  then   make it  most deserving of the  place of property  and  the  indicator  of adquiring property. If it is in the midheaven then it will come to him from authority; if it is in the place of religion, it will be more abundant.  Similarly, the first lord of the triplicity gives property at the beginning of life, the second in the middle of it the third at its end.

3rd- Al­ Andarzagar said: the first lord of the triplicity of the place of brothers indicates older brothers,  the second middle brothers  the third  younger brothers, and their conditions are according to the places of the <lords>. Here Bonatti made a mistake saying that the first lord refers to the younger brothers and the last one to the older brothers.[2]

4th Al-Andarzagar said:  the first lord of the triplicity of the place of fathers indicates fathers, the second countries and   lands, the third outcomes of the matter  and prison.

5th- AI-Andarzagar said:  the first lord of the triplicity of the place of children indicates children and life, the second pleasure, the third messengers

6th- Al-Andarzagar said:  the first lord of the triplicity of the place of illness indicates illness and recovery afflictions, the second white and  black slaves, and  the  third  what  he receives from them, their importance and their actions; it indicates riding and animals, and every four-footed animal, their sturdiness, whether they are many or few, and whether he keeps them or they run away; and prisons and confinements.

7th- Al-Andarzagar said: the first lord of the triplicity of the place of couples indicates women, the second controversies, and the third entering into covenants.

8th AI-Andarzagar said:   the first lord of the triplicity of the place of death indicates death , the second indicates old matters, and the third, inheritances.

9th- Al-Andarzagar said that the  first lord of the  triplicity of the  place of the  journey Indicates  the journey and its suitability, the second I religion and religious observance, the eminence <one obtains>  in this, and the form <the  eminence> takes, the third is the indicator of science, vision, stars (astrology), and omens and truth and falsehood in this.

10th-   Al-Andarzagar said:  the first lord of the  triplicity  of the place of authority I indicates  governorship,  honor  and  high rank,  the second   fame and  bravery in that, the third  its fixedness and continuity.

11th- Al-Andarzagar said:  the first lord of the triplicity  of the place of hope Indicates  hope,  the second friends  and the  third  their usefulness.

12- Al-Andarzagar said:  the first lord of the triplicity of the place of enemies indicates enemies, the second, fortune, and the third riding and domestic animals. “

 Well, here there is no sign of the division which gives to each third of life three fixed meanings relating to them. Finally, there is no relationship between the meaning of every lord of triplicity with a period of time.

It is true that Andarzhagar provided to some houses three different meanings, but nothing indicates that they were restricted to a period of time. His thinking, at least as described by Alchabitius, seems very akin to medieval delineation. For example, with regard to the house of substance, he says: “see which of the lords of the triplicity of the place of property-the first, the second or the third is stronger and better in its disposition and its place; then make it most deserving of the place of property”, which shows that he was in tune with precepts that guide the whole medieval astrology, that is, the search for the planet that had the best conditions, the almuten of a particular subject.

****


[1] Mars is in the house of Mercury, which in turn is in the 3th House and between them there is a sextile with mutual reception.

[2] Bonatti here is assigned the younger brother to the first ruler of the triplicity.