David_Stricker wrote:Mr. Noblehorse,
I will attempt to review your points as best as I can. Of course we are all still absorbing this material, so there may be things that I have not fully mentally digested yet. Sometimes I am doing the best that I can to present something with the hope that I will draw Mr. Schmidt into the conversation if I am missing the mark! He probably is a little tired of reviewing Antiochus' definitions and would enjoy more of the philosophical discussions. After 5 years of working on one work, I don't blame him. I have tried to bring out a few comments that I don't remember him clearly explaining and you picked up on them right off.
Agreed. When reading, struggling with, puzzling over, and absorbing this material it's quite humbling to remember that Antiochus entitled his book Introductory Matters and Mr. Schmidt entitled this particular volume of TARES Definitions and Foundations. We're just entering kindergarten folks!
David_Stricker wrote:I have misunderstood the testimonial concept (see the end of this post which includes a quote from Mr. Schmidt, that he posted while I was still typing this. I think your comments about slipping aside are correct, based on Mr. Schmidt's presentation. This is one of the insights Mr. Schmidt has provided about what appears to be missing from the presentation about planetary relationships in the synodic cycle.
In my opinion, the restoration of Hellenistic Astrology is an ongoing process that began in Ptolemy's day, if not earlier. We are indeed fortunate that Mr. Schmidt has the inclination, the training, the education, and most of all the will to assume the challenge of this restoration, In light of the history of this tradition and in light of the complexity of the subject it is inevitable that misunderstandings arise. It is in working through our misconceptions in pursuit of clarification that we not only learn but internalize. I am excited and grateful to be on this journey.
David_Stricker wrote:At this point in time I really don't think it is as important to explain what the configurations mean yet as opposed to being able to recognize them easily and accurately in the charts first! As we begin to put all of this together, we can start to try and understand what they are telling us. Mr. Schmidt has presented us with so many concepts that right now I think it is critical to correctly identify them.
Agreed. We need to know and understand clearly what it is we're looking at in a nativity. For too long astrologers have been seeing nativities imperfectly, with obviously imperfect results. There's always been enough there for us to know innately we're on to something; there's always been enough confusion and inaccuracy to keep us from fulfilling astrology's potential.
David_Stricker wrote: When I went back over the charts in Valens, hoping to see if these concepts from Antiochus make sense, I ran into a problem that I had forgotten about. There are several situations when Valens refers to a planet in a specific image in a chart example, but when using the dates suggested by Neugebauer in Greek Horoscopes,and calculating with modern astrological software or ephemeris, the planet is in a different image. I believe I have been told that this was due to the mistakes in the tables that were available at the time of Valens (and the errors were usually associated with Hermes). This can be a big deal when you are looking at a place ruled by the Twins and you need to know where Hermes is. After considering this, thinking about minutes of a portion does not seem to be quite as important. As a modern Western society, we love precision and believe that the more precise we are the more accurate we are. But this is straying into areas that probably need to be discussed in the philosophical groups! I seem to recall Mr. Schmidt discussing the idea of a portion as a discrete unit at some point in time in the PHASE lectures? I will return to the problems with the charts in Valens in another thread because I really want present some of the problems that I have encountered.
Yes, we've been struggling with these same problems out here in Arizona. The modern mindset involving ever-increasing precision perhaps steers us into so-called "analysis paralysis". Understanding portion as a "discrete unit" puts us into focus.
David_Stricker wrote:So does this mean that we have to consider the motion of both planets, not just the motion of one planet toward the natal position of another? This would mean that my thoughts about separating aspects being in testimonial relationships would not be possible if both planets are direct. Time to re-examine the texts and ponder some more....
This has always been my understanding of the perfection requirement for testimony.