I think the thing that was confusing me on this question was the fact that I was dealing with an opposition where both opposing planets were retrograde. One wasn't a significator but I just wanted to know how this would work if it had been a significator.

spirlhelix wrote:

Hmm. I thought one of them was an outer planet (Neptune).

I think this is an interesting chart from the perspective of translation of light, collection of light perspective and how to interpret it in an action. I usually can figure these out but this chart was rather unique.

I was ruled by Mercury and other significator ruled by Venus which was still retro at that time. Neptune and Venus were in direct opposition, same degree but 17 minutes of separating that opposition. Both were retro.

The moon was moving in to oppose Venus first, then trine MC and then conjunct Neptune, and then more aspects. So I was taking Moon as a co-significator of me-querent, opposing Venus, the signifcator of the thing/action I was asking about. I thought that perhaps one would intepret this to mean that because it was an opposition, I would not be doing what Venus represented since I was opposed to it. I know when it represents two people, they usually will not agree or will not meet, etc. So applied here, I tried to intepret whether the opposition would mean, I would not be taking this action again.

But then because the moon was going to conjunct Neptune, soon after it opposed Venus, and Venus and Neptune's opposition was separating but still within same degree, and only 17 minutes apart, I was not sure if Neptune's role in this was to bring these actions together somehow.

spirlhelix wrote:

That simplifies everything for me, anyway; in terms of collection and translation of light, since Neptune is not visible with the naked eye, he is not capable of either collecting or translating light. I don't even look at Neptune to speak of, or else I give him the same role I would give a fixed star (which cannot cast aspects to planets and also does not translate or collect light).

Another reason I do not use the outers: if we used the outers, they would interfere with our interpretation of translation and collection of light between the visible planets.

Hope this is useful!

Regards,

Pam

I had never heard this - that Neptune or outers could not or weren't capable of translating or collecting light in modern astrology. I learned something new!

But what I still need to work on better understanding, is IF it had not been Neptune in such a case, for example if it had been Jupiter instead of Neptune, how would/should this be interpreted?

Even if a 3rd planet, moon, translates light between two retrograde opposing planets, does that mean they will come together after all in the face of the opposition?

I suppose a simpler example would be if someone were asking if they would meet someone. And their rulers were like that, opposed and retrograde. Then moon comes along and joins with Jupiter in opposing Venus again. Does that mean the moon somehow brought them together in some way because it aspected both? If it were not an opposition, I would be inclined to think yes and that the moon perhaps translated a message or something between them, like a go-between between them.

But if its an opposition that the moon makes to one of the significators, while conjoining with the other, I'm uncertain as to how to read that. If it were, the my simple example, a question about whether two people would meet up with each other, it would look more like the moon were joining forces with one sig to oppose the meeting with the other perhaps?

If opposing Moon is touching both, one by opposition and one by conjunction how else could it be read? Or does an opposition not always keep things/parties apart? Its harder to intepret in that example.

I know Lilly gives an example that if you have a querent in opposition to the quesited for example in a marriage question, the two could still be married but would live to regret it for there would forever be strife between the two. I'm not sure now if there was a tranlation of light involved in his example or not.

Thanks again for all your material. I will continue to review it all!

RC

I had never heard this - that Neptune or outers could not or weren't capable of translating or collecting light in modern astrology. I learned something new! Surprised

Even if a 3rd planet, moon, translates light between two retrograde opposing planets, does that mean they will come together after all in the face of the opposition?

But if its an opposition that the moon makes to one of the significators, while conjoining with the other, I'm uncertain as to how to read that. If it were, the my simple example, a question about whether two people would meet up with each other, it would look more like the moon were joining forces with one sig to oppose the meeting with the other perhaps?

spirlhelix wrote:

Even if a 3rd planet, moon, translates light between two retrograde opposing planets, does that mean they will come together after all in the face of the opposition?

Not that I can tell. I would have to search Lilly for examples in order to demonstrate this, or have a chart with these features and a known outcome. Sorry, I don't have just now. . . sigh.

But if its an opposition that the moon makes to one of the significators, while conjoining with the other, I'm uncertain as to how to read that. If it were, the my simple example, a question about whether two people would meet up with each other, it would look more like the moon were joining forces with one sig to oppose the meeting with the other perhaps?

The role of the translating or collecting planet is usually (in traditional astrology) understood to be a carrier, not only of the light of the planet, but also of the nature of the aspect. A happy aspect goes on to bring happy planetary light to the second significator. Grin. The same goes for an unhappy aspect like a square or opposition. Not so good for your question (but most people want the aspect to perfect, and in your question you don't). And even with translation of light, a traditionalist will require good reception between the planets and at least one planet in good dignity to make a positive prediction.

I would take the Moon opposing one significator before perfecting an aspect to the other to be a translation of light, but not one with a desirable outcome because of the unpleasant nature of an opposition. So yes, as you say, some contact is carried out, most likely through an intermediary, (Moon) but all is not "happily ever after." There may be a disagreement, a fight, or both may stalk away from the meeting dissatisfied.

To attempt to interpret these rules in your example, if there is opposition with reception and one of the planets at least is in dignity, you might have to retake the test--against your wishes and with regrets. If there is no reception and none of your significators (including the translating/collecting planet) is in dignity, your chart would seem to show a "no" answer.

In terms of finding a clear answer, I think you are better off using chart for the question you initially asked, personally. But I thought you raised some good questions about collection of light with this example.

Warmest regards,

Spirlhelix

RC wrote:Thank you .

I will print out all this & review to see what might I might have missed in my last horary example discussed.

I think the thing that was confusing me on this question was the fact that I was dealing with an opposition where both opposing planets were retrograde. One wasn't a significator but I just wanted to know how this would work if it had been a significator.

RC

I just read this more carefully today. I didn?t know I was being tested!

Venus is applying to Jupiter in trine. Sun is applying to Jupiter in opposition. There will be a sextile from Sun to Mars and a trine from Venus to Mars, but the orb is too wide I think. I?m not clear on the acceptable orb under traditional method. I think Sun and Jupiter are allowed greater orbs aren?t they? But being Mars, this would be a 10? sextile to sun and 9? trine to Venus so maybe not allowed? The aspects to Jupiter by Sun and Venus are both within orb however.

Is this correct?

Thanks,

RC

For example Moon in 6? degrees separating from Mercury who was in 4 degrees. Mercury and Jupiter are not in aspect at all. The moon makes no other aspects until it later trines Jupiter at 26?.

Do you mean this would not be translation of light because the aspect it eventually made was not within orb when it left the Mercury aspect?

spirlhelix wrote:

Yes, that is it exactly. Traditionally speaking, An "aspect" that is not within orb is not an aspect. I really don't know how that is handled in modern horary astrology.

Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson had taught that the moon shows what action to expect in the matter and therefore is allowed all the aspects she makes while in the sign she is in at the time of the question up until she leaves that sign. So basically, you don't worry about orbs with the Moon except to tell time. The more aspects, the more action to expect. If the last aspect was good, it is one indicator of a good ending. You mainly look to her applying aspects to your significators though.

All this time I had assumed all horary was that way. I thought the only major difference in traditional astrology was not using the outer planets.

In my original chart,

Sun 02:34 Leo
Venus 02:53 Virgo
Jupiter 10:09 Sag
Moon 12:58 Sag
Mercury 13:25 Cancer
Mars 21:48 Taurus
Saturn 25:08 Leo

Moon's only aspect is conjoining the ASC and trining Saturn before leaving Sag. So Ivy (& I think all modern astrology) would have allowed the Saturn aspect.

But applying traditional technique, it is 12' away from Saturn. So it would be not allowed? (The average would be 11'15 averaging Moon and Saturn from the table you referred me to.) Or would moon's separating conjunction with Jupiter allow for a larger orb, that is would the moon take on Jupiter's allowed orb ?

Are aspects not in orb with the moon before she leaves the current question's sign given any relevance at all?

Thanks for all your help in this. I am seeing the light at the end of my tunnel vision.
RC

Are aspects not in orb with the moon before she leaves the current question's sign given any relevance at all?

Moon's only aspect is conjoining the ASC and trining Saturn before leaving Sag. So Ivy (& I think all modern astrology) would have allowed the Saturn aspect.

But applying traditional technique, it is 12' away from Saturn. So it would be not allowed? (The average would be 11'15 averaging Moon and Saturn from the table you referred me to.) Or would moon's separating conjunction with Jupiter allow for a larger orb, that is would the moon take on Jupiter's allowed orb ?

Sun 0 Gemini
Venus 1 Leo
Jupiter 5 Sagittarius
Mars 10 Aries
Saturn 12 Cancer
Moon 12 Gemini
Mercury 29 Gemini

Our significators are Sun and Venus. There is no aspect between them.

Are you saying that because the sextile is separating?

spirlhelix wrote:

Are aspects not in orb with the moon before she leaves the current question's sign given any relevance at all?

I assume you mean "aspects" to the Moon which are not aspects, traditionally speaking? Nah. They aren't relevant when we interpret the chart using traditional rules.
Pam