Definitions and Foundations, Configuration Intensive

[Therese_Hamilton]

Hello Ms. Griscti and Mr. Nobelhorse,

I’ve been following your discussion, and it’s been helpful in setting D&F concepts into my memory banks. Discussion is always a helpful support for text, and the internet really does give us a universal classroom.

Because of the multiple quotes in your exchange posts, I’m avoiding direct quotes in my reply to lessen the confusion. I’m not going to attempt of offer my thoughts on the various configurations except that for enclosure in a large stellium, it seems that each planet should be considered individually. I don’t see any problem with viewing each enclosed planet as an individual entity enclosed by the two adjoining planets. (For the moment, this is ignoring intervention.)

So in Jack Parr’s chart if we have Ares/Helios/Aphrodite/Zeus, Helios would be enclosed between Ares and Aphrodite, and Aphrodite would be enclosed by Helios and Zeus. (etc.)

Since D&F is not yet fully indexed, it would be helpful when quoting passages if the page numbers were noted so we could check the context of the points being discussed.

So as not to interrupt the flow of conversation on this topic, tomorrow I’ll be adding some notes regarding image placements in Parr’s chart under the zodiac topic on this forum. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=153&start=20

Therese Hamilton

[Martien Hermes]

Hi all

I have been studying the configurations and aspects in the chart of Ghandi.

Mr. Schmidt said:
"I would not regard Hermēs and Zeus to be in a testimonial relation because the figure will not perfect before Hermēs retrogrades back into the Balance."

This does indeed happen, but it also happens that after Mercury moves forward again, it re-enters the Scorpion, and does perfect the opposition with Jupiter in the Bull.
So this would imply that although there seems to be some sort of refranation, in the long run the testimony is kept intact, or would it?

Any thoughts?