Saturday, 6 September 2014

Joan Rivers horary: Different approaches yield the same result

This is the chart that I cast for Joan Rivers when I found out that she was in a coma:

"Will Joan Rivers die?"

1st approach = General condition of the chart. Is it a fortunate or an unfortunate chart? No need to turn the chart.

It is a VERY unfortunate chart. The malefics are angular, while the benefics are in aversion to the ascendant and square the malefics. Saturn, the Greater Malefic, is a significator. The Moon is in fall and the nastiest testimony of all is that she is applying to conjunct a peregrine Saturn, which is a very negative testimony in ANY chart, no matter what the question is, regardless of whether Saturn is a significator or not. It would take lots of positive testimony elsewhere in the chart to override this. Saturn is the natural significator of old people and death (also here the ruler of the ascendant) and he's the Moon's next aspect. End of story. 

2nd approach = Turning the chart and finding specific significators for querent and quesited. Planets in houses are not rulers of houses, nor co-rulers.

I am the querent, so I get the 1st house and since I have no personal connection with Joan Rivers, she belongs to the 7th house. Death is the radical 8th house ruler or the turned 8th house ruler (although personally I don't like this, either you turn the chart or you don't). Joan Rivers is the Moon in fall, applying to conjunct the turned 8th house ruler, Saturn. End of story.

3rd approach = Whole sign houses. Planets in houses are co-significators. No need to turn the chart.

Joan Rivers is Saturn the 1st house ruler and her death is the Sun (8th house ruler) and also Venus and Jupiter who are posited there. The Moon is translating light from Jupiter (death) to Saturn (Rivers). End of story.

4th approach = Not turning the chart and using outer planets

Same as above, only in this case the Moon is separating from Pluto (death) and applying to Saturn (Rivers). Pluto is also conjunct the Ascendant.

The timing seems to be a day off (it's less than three degrees here and she died less than four days later), but a day before she was pronounced dead, she was moved from the intensive care and taken to a private room. I think she was already gone by then and the official time of death is the time they took her off life support.

My point here is: Stop being so fanatic about the method you prefer, by simply saying "But my method consistently works!" Unless you've tried many different approaches over time, this statement doesn't mean anything. Anything at all. Perhaps there is another method out there which works more consistently than yours, how would you know?


  1. I get your point of view, Petros. And I hold your knowledge and experience in high regard. I would like to offer some comments.

    In my view, a method is tailored to the astrologer, his/her understanding and his/her mental contitioning/history and mental traits and outlook. Furthermore the astrologer and his/her method are tailored to the specific occasion when "this" and not "that" astrologer is asked to help a querent. So, whatever method (or methods) an astrologer uses is the one that is the required to serve that querent. Basically we cannot separate the method from the astrologer — it is a marriage made in heaven… :-)

    Discounting purely faulty knowledge, bad training and lack of experience, one thing that certainly means nothing at all in my view is to believe that one's method is better of more accurate than others. As you just exemplified, other methods can produce accurate results. At the same time, I have witnessed various situations where if you use different methods to judge the same chart they will give contradictory results, which illustrates my point #1 above: in suc cases we have to let the astrologer who was initially asked take care of the chart and answer without major interferences.

    If a method consistenly works and astrology serves well its purpose to inform the one who wants information, wanting to try other methods would be purely a matter of personal interest. Personally, I do not have the time or inclination to explore multiple methods; and I am not a scholar. I see no need to and I am happy with the degree of accuracy I get from the methods I use. However I do appreciate and learn from coming across an article like yours demostrating them.

    We can appreciate each method for their individual beauty and harmony and accuracy, all the better if we have that appreciation for the method (s) we ourselves use.

    All the best, Petros. Keep up the great work.