Monday, 5 September 2011

Where IS it?


Not only is losing something a nuisance, trying to find it is more of a nuisance, but this is nothing compared to trying to find it using horary. Well, that's my experience and generally I don't bother. However, because I was recently asked about this by a Tweeter (thanks to @xpaulk and I know he'll be interested) and because I found the thing immediately, I'm posting the chart here.

I haven't been posting recently because I'm in the middle of moving house, this added to the problem because I couldn't be absolutely certain that it was in the house. My passport needs to be renewed, I put it off because of the move and put away the old passport and the necessary forms for completing later. Later has arrived, but they weren't where I thought I'd put them. This is the top of three drawers in my desk. I searched twice, once quickly the second time more thoroughly. Piles of papers were investigated (always lots of those), other sets of drawers (plenty of those) and when I was convinced that I couldn't find them, I asked the question…

Where is my passport?

I didn't make this a complete judgement and didn't look anything up, I simply wanted to find the thing. I saw the late Ascendant and assumed that I would find it quickly and that there was a suggestion of 'edges' or 'between'. The Moon is on the 2nd cusp which gave me confidence that it was in this house and not the new one, thus it wasn't far from my possession or its proper place. Sagittarius indicates a warm place and/or near a wall. The ruler of the 2nd house is Jupiter which is in the 6th house, retrograde (good, it's an indication of recovery), but not well off in Taurus.

It took me 4 minutes from the time of the question to find the passport because of these two planets: it's near where it should be and it's dusty, dark and between things. So, down on the floor I went, under the desk, behind the computer and there they were. The passport and documents had fallen out of the back of the drawer.

The only point I'm pushing here is that sometimes it's easy – and that is remarkable enough to get me blogging again.

PS: the planetary hour is Mercury which doesn't agree with the Ascendant, but as the natural ruler of such things, I accepted it. It has a square to the Ascendant which I took as helpful because it described the documents as being in a recoverable location – connected to me. There is angularity otherwise I wouldn't have bothered looking.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

Chronology & Bibliography

I've just uploaded the Chronology and Bibliography for Monster of Ingratitude to my web site. The latter is self-explanatory and is formed of the endnotes for the paper. The former is the working document Peter Stockinger and used to keep track of events, particularly in terms of the many publications relating to our investigation. It's interesting in its own right, but clarifies a continuing situation that became quite confusing at times.

Peter also constructed a shorter chronology of publications relating to the later fight picked by Gadbury with John Partridge. Another friend that Gadbury turned on and another war that Gadbury lost, catastrophically some might say.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

D'ye Ken John Re-Peel

If you've been reading my Facebook posts, you'll know that I've been following the reports that this UK Government is proposing to repeal the anti-fox hunting law. I discovered Brian May's ("Queen" guitarist) excellent web site http://www.save-me.org set up to organise pressure on the Government to maintain the current law. There is a petition on the site, to which I added my name, and advice about contacting local Members of Parliament, which I did. The response I received was somewhat worrying because my MP is listed as being in favour of maintaining the current law prohibiting fox hunting.

This is Rebecca Harris's reply:

As a devoted dog-owner, my position is that no animal should be subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering.

The Government has indicated that there will be a free vote on a Motion on hunting during the lifetime of the current Parliament. this does not mean that the Government supports a repeal of the Hunting Act; merely that, unlike last time, all Members will be free to vote according to their conscience.

However, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that the Government currently has more pressing issues to address, and so this vote may not occur for some time.
[My emphases.]

Having a pet is, I suppose, A reason for not wanting to hurt animals, but being a human being should be first and foremost.

Unnecessary pain or suffering: does that mean that it's all right to cause pain and suffering if it's deemed necessary? I raise this point because of the proposed cull of badgers (protected by law in the UK) because it is alleged that badgers infect cattle with tuberculosis. The cull will be carried out by licensed farmers or landowners which will allow them to shoot badgers. This would then be necessary pain and suffering. Well, that's all right then – as long as it's necessary!

The Coalition Government, out of the goodness of their hearts, simply wants to makes sure that every MP can vote according to his or her conscience. How nice. What about voting according to the wishes of their constituents – you know, The Voters. Those same people who wanted the ban in the first place. Perhaps the Government just forgot.

So, Rebecca Harris MP, is more politican than animal lover. No surprise there, I suppose. Just because your MP has said that they are in favour of maintaining the ban, doesn't mean anything unless they are unequivocal. Ms. Harris's predecessor in reply to my question about her position regarding the impending fox hunting ban, wrote that she was "implacably opposed to fox hunting". That's what I call unequivocal.

Go to Brian May's web site and register as a supporter, sign the petition, encourage others to sign the petition and write to your MP. In addition, there is a page re. the proposed badger cull, enabling anyone to write to the above-mentioned Department answering the questions they have put forward for public consultation. Answer the questions (guidance is provided) and send it by e-mail.




Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Monster of Ingratitude & The Life of William Lilly

To all those who have already downloaded these two books, thank you very much. It's gratifying to know that so much hard work is appreciated. Both Peter Stockinger and I look forward to hearing from you with your comments.

Can I ask everyone not to overlook the DONATE link. It is so very important that we collect as much as we can so that animals' lives may be saved. To those of you who did try, I've corrected the text to read "Donation" on the PayPal page which you may have found off-putting. My apologies for that, but web sites aren't my strong point!

I know that paying online can be a bit of a nuisance and you may have meant to do it later, but the animals don't have that luxury, they need help NOW. So, please show your appreciation in the time-honoured fashion and pay up!

Monday, 15 November 2010

Free Books to Download

I have just uploaded two titles to my web site - http://www.sue-ward.co.uk - under "Books". These are free of charge, but you are asked to show your appreciation by donating £3.00 to animal welfare charities (use link to payments page).

The first title is Monster of Ingratitude written by myself and Peter Stockinger, it is a fully referenced investigation into and account of the well-known enmity between William Lilly and John Gadbury. The real reason for this is presented in detail; suffice it to say that it is not the reason most often given.

The second title is the much better known The Life of William Lilly, Student in Astrology, but this is my transcription from the autograph (his signed manuscript). I have been faithful to this manuscript and have added biographical information of the various characters involved and other information. Where I've been able to find them, I've added relevant nativities and my presentation Beyond the Great Fire which looks at the relationship between Lilly and Ashmole among other things. It's a bumper bundle!

You'll find full details on my web site.

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Technical Hitch

Unfortunately, there is a problem with the server for The Tradition Library and Journal. It is currently being corrected, but it may take a little while. We'll let you know when it's fixed.

Monday, 13 September 2010

Never Ask the Same Question Twice

One of the unwritten, but oft-quoted, rules of horary astrology, is that you shouldn't ask the same question twice. I say "unwritten" because a source has never been discovered. I've thought about this over the years and, whilst there is no Traditional source for it, it has continued to play on my mind. In practice, I've found ways around it and have equivocated, but generally avoid asking (or allowing to be asked) the same question twice, but for no solid reason. There is the argument that if the querent won't accept the original answer, then subsequent questions won't help. The same could be said about horary charts where the considerations before judgement are in effect – they provide an answer of their own and to persist would seem foolish.

First, I'll explain what I mean by asking more than once, although it might seem plain and obvious: when a client asks the same question of various practitioners,
astrologers or not; when the querent refuses to accept the first answer; when curiosity overwhelms. It is a greater problem these days because it is so easy to calculate a chart and print it; a thousand in a day if we choose, and this is more prevalent when so many querents are there own astrologers. Generally, we don't view this as terribly important, perhaps people are playing with it, but it doesn't really matter. Does it?

Clearly, time plays its part in astrology, but more so with horary. A great many words have been written about the 'horary moment', which moment is correct and so
on, however, we have managed to miss the point almost entirely in my opinion. It's not that we don't appreciate the importance of that moment, but that we don't understand WHY it is important. I can't say that I understand time, but I offer an image of the little that I think I understand.

I'm afraid that I have to touch on that old chestnut, the 'Fate versus Freewill' argument. My observation of horary and its workings has brought me to the conclusion
that it isn't a question of one or the other, it is BOTH. Each nativity, by its very nature, shows an entire life much as a brook or stream following a certain course. Water is a good analogy because water, whilst following the line of least resistance, may also forge its own path. And this is my point, whilst each life may follow a predestined course, it doesn't have to, we can make choices. Of course, this is delimited by individual capacities and personalities. The decisions we make are largely sourced in our personalities: impulsive, cautious, static, and so on, and this follows the predestined course of our lives. The same applies within the field of horary astrology: the type of question and the reason for asking will usually be determined by the type of person asking it. But that isn't how horary works. It works on the basis that the querent really is trying to 'manage' their own destiny and who will and can act on the information the chart offers. It is the reason that so-called 'third party questions' are fraught with problems; the querent is unlikely to have control over someone else's destiny. I would extend this to external events, those over which we usually have no control to include political, international and natural events. As children we are often at the mercy of the destinies of others, primarily our parents, and here we might consider the debate about 'Nature versus Nurture' as apposite.

So, continuing the analogy, if we consider each individual life to be like a fast running stream or brook, we can watch from many viewpoints and see the twists and
turns, the rocks and hollows that it negotiates . We might watch from upstream or down, or somewhere in between, but as observers, we can't see it all, except that that is exactly what we try to and can do with the nativity. Using horary we attempt to observe a droplet of that water, but it is one of thousands which pass that one point of observation at any given moment. So which one is the right one? We have to be careful because, once the droplet is chosen, the brook rushes on, but it does so with one droplet less because the astrologer has chosen that one to examine. In so doing we have stopped the clock and changed the composition of the brook.

Once that moment, that now frozen droplet, is accepted as indicative of the matter asked about, time has stopped in that particular and the future has been
determined. The myriad possibilities of that one subject have been condensed into one droplet, and this and no other will describe the future of the question and, in most cases, there is no alternative. We have intercepted fate by exericising our freewill.

When the astrologer casts the horoscope for the question, he or she has stopped that particular droplet, and just as you can never cross the same river twice, neither
can you ask the same question because the river has moved on and has changed. Once the question has been put as a horary question, a choice has been made – the answer has been chosen. It doesn't matter how many more times the question is asked, the original answer cannot be undone, and it explains how it is that contradictory answers are obtained by going to more than one practitioner. It also explains many failed or apparently unreadable charts.

The implication is that we have many possible futures and we choose one, although not always the same one, we may ride the waves and jump from one to another.
When we ask a horary question, we choose one of those futures, because we can only have one at a time, and so great care should be exercised. It was not for no reason that the ancient astrologers required the querent to pray before posing their question. Such contemplation is useful if for no other reason than to prepare oneself for the answer – it might not be the one expected or wanted.

This also goes some way towards explaining the necessity for the potential of action on the part of the querent; he or she must have some degree of power in the
question and a desire to act appropriately. All magical and mystical systems espouse awareness as their principle teaching and if we are aware then our choices are likewise. From such a position real choices can be made, rather than the more common reactions. We generally activate freewill weakly, if at all, because we are at the mercy of our personalities and temperaments. We have to rise above these in order to rise above the stars and control our destinies, but those "stars" delineate our personalities, so it is that which has to be risen above. I realise that this poses as many questions as it might answer, but there's nothing I can do about that, each of us needs to contemplate the principle.

Think carefully before turning your question into a horary question, it is a magical operation and changes the future. Be sure that you can cope with that change.