|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #074
In This Issue:
From: Exegesis Moderator
Exegesis Digest Thu, 05 Sep 2002
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Exegesis Moderator
Subject: [e] Re: Horary doubts and Questions
Anne Barr wrote (in 7:72):
> >I'd like to put forward for group
> >discussion - if anyone is interested
> >- the question of whether damn
> >horaries damn well work or damn well
> >don't! I have had both experiences
> >and feel quite frustrated.
My experience, similar to that of others I have talked with, is that very many horaries never come to an obvious resolution and will occasionally contradict the real outcome. Some horaries are suggestive but not quite as definite as one would like. Some horaries are radical and clear, and sometimes they ring like a bell with clarity...when a horary is sharply radical there's nothing else like it, it feels like you're conversing with some ancient spirit.
I've learned, through casting horaries and through non-astrological techniques, that most divination is not very consistent and varies greatly depending on the technique, the circumstances, and mostly the intent of the participants. Horary is generally less useful that other divination techniques in my experience, but when it works it is much more accurate and detailed that anything else. I tend to use horaries for very concrete things like lost items or legal/business relationships and events.
My personal "score" is that 15% are right, 20% are almost right (judged incorrectly or later shown to be only somewhat suggestive), nearly 10% are cast out due to clear strictures against judgement, 10% are simply incorrect, and the rest I'm not sure of and would consider not useful and probably incorrect. I guess that means that I find less than 25% of them useful. I consider that a very good percentage.
I've made it a point to keep copies of the charts and detailed notes about every horary I cast and will occasionally review them to see if my understanding has changed. More than once I've found an old chart with a stricture that I overlooked and foolishly failed to read the chart correctly.
Trite and trivial attempts at divination rarely generate useful results as does not being able to focus on the issues at hand (my Saturn in 7 charts have clearly shown this).
Divination is a funny business, best not to worry too much about it and try to use a light touch. Accept that you'll miss some things and that some attempts will fail. Observe and take notes and incorporate what you've learned.
> >I did a chart for 2 friends about to
I've skipped over the chart.
> >I suppose several 1000 people besides
> >myself have noticed that Lilly is
> >inconsistent and sometimes uses
> >derived houses for Questions asked
> >about a 3rd party and sometimes
> >doesn t bother.
Right, but so what? If you accept that horary is divination then you don't need to worry about which rules are the correct rules too too much. All things in moderation. Build up technique that is appropriate for you and amend as needed. If you find that a certain school fits your demeanor then investigate the techniques and test them for yourself.
> >I've started to disregard his "first
> >3 degrees is too early and last 3 degrees
> >is too late" rule. And have found that
> >one can interpret charts with success
> >that break his rules.
I consider the "first 3, last 3" a reasonable stricture but occasionally treat it as a warning if appropriate... especially if the timing is part of the issue under inspection. Lilly is certainly worth study, but that doesn't mean you MUST follow his techniques. I tried to test the horary techniques that I've encountered and have rejected a number that don't make sense to me and don't seem to bear scrutiny. On the other hand, I'm pretty comfortable with a number of the traditional strictures, they act like a check on the astrologer over-doing it and at the very least should be taken as a warning flag to pay extra attention when they arise. I like the strictures and wish more astrology techniques had constraints.
> >But...this one that I just failed on,
> >had a rising degree at 2 degrees Virgo...
Yeah, one of the problems with having too many techniques in the field is that they like to reintroduce themselves into your world after you set them aside. If that rule appears rarely I'd consider it a minor infraction, if it happens very often then I'd consider examining it again and consider if it is really worth adding. My overall goal has been to use as small a set of techniques as possible and to rank them by importance. In my horary work a Saturn in the 7th is nearly always a show-stopper, I consider it very, very important. Some of the "translation-of" techniques do not make me happy, and I've yet to make a good case for or against them.
> >I have chosen to study horary as deeply
> >as I can as it seems to be a fairly
> >limited of field of study where one can
> >actually test all the rules with
> >concrete questions.
Exactly! I've been puzzling over the same thing for nearly a decade. It seems almost obvious that horary would be perfect for this, but how will you create the "tests" without introducing a dead, mechanical focus to the process? If you accept that horary is divination, and thus that a sincere, focused human is needed to cast the horary for it to work, then finding a set of test questions is very difficult.
If you reject the notion that horary is divination then there's no problem, except that horary IS divination--there is no other explanation for it that is not revealed as absurd upon examination. Well, it might be the case that horary is not divination and works but cannot be explained, but that's damn close to being a definition of divination! (grin)
If you study any divination systems you find the exact same problem, testing the system fails when you remove the human element and replace it with a supposed "objective" method. Does that mean that you cannot test divination? No, only that you cannot remove the human from the system and that the effort has to be "real". What works for me has been to keep notes and study them over time. My overall trend has been to minimize the use of divination and save it for the times when more reasoned approaches are not useful.
For example, finding the winner of a sporting contest has never been important to me, and trying to use horary for that would be something of a misuse of the art (to me). But if my child were a participant in the game and the outcome would have a big impact on their life, it then would become a valid area of concern and investigation. I think that this also amplifies my concerns with testing horary, using sports as a "test-bed" would not work for me because I consider that use to be a mostly trite and somewhat demeaning use.
> >I also consider the aspects to the
> >outer planets valid and use the
> >'new' rulerships too and find it all
What I find interesting is that you can use both. I find that you can hide the modern planets and still get a similar reading in most cases. In fact I find that lots of techniques tend to overlap and this has led me on a quest (of sorts) to see how minimal a set of techniques I can effectively use. When I was a beginner I scoffed at solar charts assuming they were nearly worthless, but I now find the idea of solar charts very compelling.
What would you think of an astrology with only houses and planets, major aspects with very narrow orbs and without sign degrees? I've yet to fully investigate this but I find the idea attractive and hope to spend some time going over my chart collection and seeing if I can simplify my approach in useful ways.
> >any recommendations for sites/articles
> >on horary I'd also really appreciate.
I like both "Horary Astrology" by Anthony Louis and "Astrology Looks at History" edited by Noel Tyl. I don't know if they are easily available.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
End of exegesis Digest V7 #74
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.