Dima Gur
New member
Hello everyone,
I've stumbled upon an astrologer (Marcos Patchett) who referred to Dorotheus and Hephaestus. In his reference he mentioned that the latter two talked about an "hierarchy of charts".
That is, if we have the time of the exact event it's preferable to use it (for our analysis or horary purposes) over a time in which a person heard about an event, and that is preferable over the time a person comes to us with a question (a 'regular' horary time).
The logic is sound, I believe, when we have an event which was involved.
In your horary practice do you use such a distinction and use an event time, when available, over the time the querent comes to you?
The disadvantage may be that using a uniform and regular method of judging horaries, by taking the time querents contact us, is more consistent. However, it may do an injustice to the astrology, as we should be using the stronger chart. Just like Ben Dykes once mentioned that the classic chart hierarchy is: Mundane over Natal over Horary (from large to small).
---
Here's the quote by Patchett (Astrology Podcast Ep.346):
"So in Dorotheus and Hephaestus, I think they said if a client comes to you when something has happened, ideally cast the chart for the moment that the event occurred, and that’ll be the inception chart for that moment and you’ll use that. And then they say, “If you don’t have that and you don’t have the time for that moment, then use the time for when the client first found out about it, when they first learned about the event that had happened. But if that isn’t present, then use the chart for when the client comes to you asking the question."
I've stumbled upon an astrologer (Marcos Patchett) who referred to Dorotheus and Hephaestus. In his reference he mentioned that the latter two talked about an "hierarchy of charts".
That is, if we have the time of the exact event it's preferable to use it (for our analysis or horary purposes) over a time in which a person heard about an event, and that is preferable over the time a person comes to us with a question (a 'regular' horary time).
The logic is sound, I believe, when we have an event which was involved.
In your horary practice do you use such a distinction and use an event time, when available, over the time the querent comes to you?
The disadvantage may be that using a uniform and regular method of judging horaries, by taking the time querents contact us, is more consistent. However, it may do an injustice to the astrology, as we should be using the stronger chart. Just like Ben Dykes once mentioned that the classic chart hierarchy is: Mundane over Natal over Horary (from large to small).
---
Here's the quote by Patchett (Astrology Podcast Ep.346):
"So in Dorotheus and Hephaestus, I think they said if a client comes to you when something has happened, ideally cast the chart for the moment that the event occurred, and that’ll be the inception chart for that moment and you’ll use that. And then they say, “If you don’t have that and you don’t have the time for that moment, then use the time for when the client first found out about it, when they first learned about the event that had happened. But if that isn’t present, then use the chart for when the client comes to you asking the question."
