Paul Walker's tragic death and chart rectification

We don't have a birth time for Paul Walker (at least I don't) so I'll "play around" with his chart and try to find one possible birth time. I do not know much about him, so I'm going to rely on two major events in his life that are known to everybody. His death yesterday (30th November 2013) and his big breakthough with the first film of the Fast and Furious series, in 2001. Naturally, two events, however major, are hardly sufficient to provide any certainty about the birth time, but let's give it a shot.



Let's start with the time of death. If we follow Ptolemy, the primary candidates as killing planets are Saturn and Mars. In Paul Walker's chart they are both in a severely debilitated state. Saturn is in detriment and conjunct the South Node and Mars is also in detriment in Taurus. We see that around 40 years of age (a little more, a little less -depending on which method of calculation you prefer) we have the direction of the Sun (19o49' Virgo) to the the square of Mars (8o54' Leo). You can already see that the zodiacal distance between these two points is around 41 degrees. Of course we need the distance in right ascension here, but it's not going to be a lot different than 41, in fact somewhat less. This direction also seems to fit the manner of Walker's death, as he died in a fiery car crash (Mars, a fiery planet that rules machines).

However, this means that the Sun must be the hyleg. In order to satisfy most of the methods on how to identify the hyleg, we should make Walker's nativity a diurnal one and we must avoid the 9th, 8th, 12th and perhaps 7th (where the Sun sets) houses of the chart, which leaves us with the 10th and 11th houses.

We also know that Walker became famous in 2001 with the release of the first Fast and Furious film. If we put the Sun in the 10th house, there doesn't seem to be an obvious and important direction for such a significant event that changed his life. If we put the Sun, however, in the 11th house, that would place Leo in the 10th and the Sun would be its ruler. So, a primary direction of the Sun to the conjunction of the Midheaven would give us the desired result. Based on that direction, we would have an MC at 20o53' Leo and an ascendant at 14o24' Scorpio. With these placements, both events are covered.

Does it fit generally, however? It seems that it does. A Scorpio ascendant would give us Mars as its ruler, which, in turn, would be angular in the 7th house and in detriment. This fact alone, signals danger.  This year's solar return has Mars (in Leo!) conjunct the ascendant and square Saturn in Scorpio. The lunar return has Sagittarius ascending with Jupiter retrograde in Cancer in the 8th house! Finally, Saturn is currently conjunct this ascendant.

Feel free to comment, particularly if you disagree or have another birth time to propose.

Venus in earth signs (Taurus, Capricorn, Virgo)

Earth is an element Venus is quite comfortable with. Earth has a lot to do with the body, which is undoubtedly one of Venus' favourite occupations. Earth loves incarnation and Venus is a deity that doesn't look down on material reality, unlike some other Gods who prefer the world of the Spirit.

Venus in Taurus =  Venus rules Taurus and according to various authors, this is her preferred sign. I am not sure I share the same view, but it cannot be denied that Taurus is a very hospitable place for Venus to be. The best thing (or, for some, the worst) thing about Taurus is that it loves the world of matter. Taurus doesn't view the body as a prison cell and doesn't waste any time trying to escape from it, but instead tries to get the most out of it. So, relationships for Taurus are like food. Yes, food is a necessity, but how wonderful that is! You can cook something delicious and get both nourishment and pleasure at the same time. In this way, Taurus kills two birds with one stone.

Venus in Taurus is not interested in relationships in the same way as Venus in Libra is. Venus in Taurus doesn't want to "relate", doesn't really want to find out what the other person is all about and she is not concetrated on creating a new separate entity called "the relationship". No, no, that's too much effort. It's what the body needs that counts. Does it want shelter and heat? Does it want food and sex? Then it must be done immediately. Who am I to question what my body dictates?

This can cause problems for an Aries Sun or even a Sun in Gemini, but for this Venus the body comes first. The body is like an infant that needs to be fed every time it cries, preferably even before it cries. No wonder the Moon is exalted in Taurus. 

Venus in Capricorn = OK, this Venus goes something like this: "Fine, I have a body and this body has needs. I can accept that. So, I have to find a partner because this is THE RULE. It's the done thing. It's not that I hate relationships, but a relationship has aspects that I do not particularly enjoy. Sometimes people invade too much on your privacy and want to break down your barriers, but I don't like that. I'd much rather we kept a safe distance. Still, not being in a relationship is even worse, because people may start to think that there's something seriously wrong with me. So, I MUST be in  a relationship so as to appear normal, preferably one that lasts for a long time, because I can't live with the constant stress and anxiety of finding a partner. It will also shut people up and I won't have them breathing down my neck, but will leave me well alone".

This Venus is often called a "marriage Venus", but this is not because she likes marriage per se, but because marriage saves you from being an outcast. The best thing about this Venus, however, is that it can help partners with emotional problems, as she can straigthen them out. When she feels in control, she can be very beneficial to others. After all, Venus is not an enemy of Saturn.

Venus in Virgo = Here we have problems. Venus is in fall in Virgo despite ruling the earth triplicity by day. Why is that? Virgo is a Mercury-ruled sign and it's all about logic, common sense and discretion. Which means that Virgo is in search of the factual truth and this search cannot be compromised, not even for love. Love, however, more often than not means allowing someone into our lives DESPITE their faults and weaknesses. Suddenly, something else, even for a short period of time, becomes more important than the truth. Venus in Virgo can't do that, however. When the truth stares her in the face, she can't turn her gaze away. She falls in love, but pretty soon reality creeps in and all the magic is gone. Therefore, she soon realizes that expecting anything more from love than passing pleasure is quite unreal. 

Even if she manages to live with that, there is still another problem. Love can bring chaos in someone's life. Suddenly everything gets disorganized and another person becomes your top priority. Love is a big disruption to our daily routine and Virgo just won't have that. This Venus placement often gives very chaste or very promiscuous people, but with a common denominator: avoidance of commitment. This stems however, not from a desire for freedom, but from a fear of disorder and from a natural dislike for fairytales.

Venus in Gemini, Libra, Aquarius - the air signs

Venus is not averse to air. The element of air contains moisture - hence a desire and an ability to connect - and the goddess of love is all about connection, bringing people or things together. Venus is not in detriment or fall in any of the air signs, but, in fact, rules one of them, the sign of Libra. So, is this not a bad Venus to have? It depends on what your views are about love.

Venus in Libra: This is what relationships are, at least that's what astrology tells us they are. I know many of you don't like it, but this it. Suck it up. A relationship has nothing to do with passionate love either of the firey excitement kind or the watery emotional kind. A relationship is about two people who are attracted to each other and decide to sit down and talk about their separate needs and wants, trying to meet halfway. Excitement quickly passes and so does grand passion, which leaves you no option but to walk out on the other person when all this is spent. No, Venus in Libra doesn't want that. "Can I make a relationship last?" That's what she asks herself. "Why should I go from person to person having the same result every time?" Excitement doesn't work, neither does passion. What does work? Rules. Libra is the sign where Saturn is exalted and loves the laying-down of rules, which, if respected, can make sure a relationship lasts. And the two most fundamental rules of all are communication and compromise, because this means that you love the other person enough to want to know how they feel and to be willing to make some sacrifices for their sake. Passionate love is very self-centred and equals ignorance, because you are not really in love with the other person, but instead you are in love with how they make you feel. According to Venus in Libra, that's not love.

Venus is Aquarius: Here communication and compromise take precedence while attraction is not that important. In Aquarius, Venus becomes much more impersonal. Both Libra and Aquarius have a problem with the Sun. The Sun is in fall in Libra and in detriment in Aquarius. So there are no "special people" for these two signs. However, Libra is ruled by Venus and at least Venus there says "You may not be someone special, but I"m attracted to you specifically", Venus in Aquarius can't say even that. The problem with this Venus is that for quite a lot of people love requires a consious choice of another human being and this is very rarely the case with Venus in Aquarius. It may be objective in a sense (What's so special about any of us, after all?), but when you get involved with this Venus, after a while you start resenting the fact that you are just "any other person" and that you don't seem to be high on your loved one's list of preferences. If he/she has one, that is. The problem quite often is that other people feel duped. Venus in Aquarius wants to connect (Aquarius is a moist sign) and it's a fixed sign, which means that she's not against lasting relationships. So, there is indeed a willigness to form relationships. Still, this very annoying air of detachment that this Venus carries, make other people wonder: "What the hell do you want a relationship for?"  

Venus in Gemini: Of the three airy Venuses, this is perhaps the most problematic. Venus can become friends with Saturn, but not so with Mercury, Gemini's ruler. It's a "better" Venus than the one in Virgo, where Mercury is particularly strong, but still, she doesn't feel at ease in Gemini. Gemini is about communication, but without the rules. Mercury is famous for his lack of morality, which is a valuable asset when it comes to knowledge (there is no right or wrong in knowledge and everything should be accessible to everyone), but in relationships this can be a problem, because there is no sense of commitment. Venus in Gemini is curious about love. Not in the same way as Venus in Sagittarius wants to experience love (as part of a greater scheme of things), but knowledge for knowledge's sake. Gemini is famous for wanting to learn as many things as possible, but doesn't want to do anything with them afterwards. Unlike Virgo, Gemini doesn't want quality, but quantity. So, Venus in Gemini often finds it difficult to stay faithful, because there are so many other people out there! Which also means that she 's not interested in learning everything there is to know about the other person. Knowing something in depth requires so much time and effort that Geminis prefer to spend it somewhere new.

2012 and beyond

A lot is being said about the 21^st of December 2012 and astrologers around the world are busy delineating the chart of that particular date. Others are saying that nothing extremely out of the ordinary is going on, while others are paying special attention to the yod aspect formed by Saturn in Scorpio, Pluto in Capricorn and Jupiter in Gemini. The truth is that no one can say that indeed something extremely rare is about to happen, because difficult planetary configurations happen all the time and the world is still here.

First of all, is the yod really an aspect? For those of you who are not familiar with the non – ptolemaic aspects, the yod is formed by two planets who are in a sextile aspect (Pluto in Capricorn, Saturn in Scorpio) and both of them are in a quincunx aspect (150o degrees) to a third planet, in this case Jupiter in Gemini. A lot has been said about the yod, but as is often the case with modern astrology, nothing has been said that can’t be interpreted the way each astrologer sees fit. To my mind, the important thing about yods, quincunxes and semi-sextiles is precisely the fact that there is no aspect. The norm is for the planets to be in aspect by sign to one another. For the Sun of course, it is quite common to be in inconjunct signs with Mercury and Venus, but we could say that the common thing is for planets to exert an influence, however slight, to every other planet in the chart.

The quincunx aspect is not rare, but yods are less common. The planet that forms the quincunx aspects has no relation with TWO other planets in the chart, regardless of the orb and taking antiscia into account. Is that a good or a bad thing? On the whole, I would say that it is preferable for planets to be in aspect - at least by sign – with each other, because confrontation brings awareness, despite the difficulties. It is debatable however, whether a planet would benefit from a confrontation with another planet in a very poor state. In the 2012 chart, Jupiter is in the sign of its detriment and retrograde. That is a nasty Jupiter and probably not a lot of fun to be around with. So, it won’t probably be able to soften the Saturn/Pluto sextile and perhaps it’s for the better.

What is also interesting in this chart is that there’s a mutual reception, not between Pluto and Saturn as modern astrologers tell us, but between Mars and Saturn, since Mars is also in Capricorn. We have, therefore, the two traditional malefics liking each other enormously and Pluto is there, joining in the fun. What’s even more interesting, is that this is a very “martial”chart. Mars himself is exalted in Capricorn, Saturn is in a Mars-ruled sign, Pluto and the Sun (winter solstice) are in the sign of Mars’ exaltation and finally the Moon and Uranus are also in a Mars-ruled sign, Aries. This is too much Mars and we all know the things Mars is associated with.

Now, is Mars a benefic or a malefic? There is a slight difference of opinion in traditional astrologers about this, mainly because there is ambivalence in the ancient texts. There are those who say that any planet can be either benefic or malefic, depending on the sign it is in. If the planet is in the sign it rules or where it is exalted, it is a benefic. In the sign of its detriment or fall, a malefic. Others, although they basically agree with the previous statement, make a distinction between Mars and Saturn, the natural malefics and the other planets, saying that a well-dignified Mars or Saturn may indeed behave well, but the things Mars and Saturn rule, even though necessary, are naturally unpleasant. So, no matter what their condition is, Mars and Saturn can never be called Fortunes.

In the 2012 chart, we have an extremely  strong Mars energy and we have a well-behaved Mars, in the sign of its exaltation. We could interpret this as things that need to be done and are necessary (Mars in exaltation), but they may not be pleasant (Mars and Saturn, the natural malefics, in mutual reception). This is not valid only for that particular day, but for the whole season, since it is the day of the winter solstice.

The most interesting thing, however, that has been said about the time period around 2012 is, I think, not what this chart for that particular date tells us, but the fact that we are living at a time that Regulus, one of the four royal fixed stars that are associated with the solstices, has or is about to move into Virgo. This is the last of the four “solstice stars” to ingress into a mutable sign, with the other three stars (Fomalhaut, Aldebaran and Antares) already being in the other three mutable signs. This means that after a very long time, all four stars are going to be in signs of the same quality. This, indeed, does imply change. Is it going to be a change for better or for worse? Frawley, in particular, is quite pessimistic about this change, saying that gradually spirituality is going to hit an all-time-low, judging from what happened when Fomalhaut, for example, moved into Pisces, which was at the time of the Enlightenment. We are now living in the Age of Reason, which, for Frawley is not enlightenment at all, but exactly the opposite thing. So, with Regulus moving into Virgo, we are going to move even further away from spirituality, marking an “End of Days” kind of situation according to the Christian tradition. Even if somebody is not quite as pessimistic as Frawley about this, one cannot escape the fact, that the mutable signs are about closing circles and returning to the Source, so, when the four solstice stars move again into cardinal signs, in 2160 years or thereabouts, there is going to be a “get rid of the old and start afresh” kind of thing. We won’t be around to witness that, but for the time being we could stay alert for signs of spiritual degradation. 

Venus in fire signs (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius)

Does Venus like fire? The answer is simple. No. Venus rules an earth sign (Taurus), an air sign (Libra) and is exalted in a water sign (Pisces). Earth is about the senses, while air and water, both being moist elements, are about connecting people, each one in its own manner. We could say that Venus, through the senses (Taurus), brings two opposites together in a relationship (Libra) which can result to the experience of love in the emotional sense (Pisces). Fire, I'm afraid, has nothing to do with all that.

Venus in Aries. This is the sign of Venus' arch-enemy, Mars. Mars represents the male view of life, to which Venus violently opposes. Mars competes, races and hates standing still. Mars sees life as a challenge and its moto is "it can be done". The Taurus self of Venus fails to see the point in all this, because there's always going to be another race, another challenge, another prize to win and this attitude prevents people from enjoying the pleasures life has to offer. For Venus, this is a waste of valuable time. Aries, however, finds the way of life Venus proposes as completely meaningless. Winning prizes is not simply fun, it is accomplishment. When you reach the end of your life, what will there be for you to show for? If the answer is nothing special, then your life was a failure. It's as simple as that.

Mars is very sexual and very passionate but doesn't understand relationships. As long as the passion lasts, everything is fine. When all of it is spent, there's no need for the relationship to continue. What on earth for? Venus is, therefore, very uncomfortable in Aries as this sign goes against everything it believes in. Women with this placement -particularly if the rest of the chart supports this testimony - very often display manly characteristics or their approach to relationships is what we would call masculine. They may show a dislike for other women when the latter ones become "too feminine" and constantly criticize them for not being honest and direct or for "playing tricks". They also accuse men of not being able to appreciate a "true woman" and cannot understand why they seem to show a preference for "silly and frivolous" women or "bimbos". They are often tomboys and dislike spending too much time in front of the mirror. The problem is - if other elements in the chart point to the opposite direction - that sometimes behind this agressiveness and apparent self-assuredness hides a feeling of inadequacy. The feeling of "I'm not woman enough", especially if other people marginalize them exactly because of this.

Venus in Leo. Leo receives a lot of bad press for being individualistic and egocentric. True, very true. When you are on the path of self-knowledge, however, there's no other way. Leo, ruled by the Sun, is the sign of self-knowledge and self-knowledge requires having yourself as your top priority. The problem with people with a heavy emphasis on the sign of Leo is that, unless they have some sort of talent to justify this self-centredness or simply be fun to hang around with, they can be extremely irritating. Relationships and other people in general are not appreciated by Leo, despite evidence to the contrary. There's often an insecurity in Leo whether or not they are on the right path. That's why they need other people, not because they actually appreciate their presence in their lives, but because if other people love them and admire them, then, yes, they are on the right path, they are doing something right.

Venus, however, is not about the self. When the self is all you care about, even when it is for all the right reasons, there's little room for anyone else. So, this is also a malfunctioning Venus. Remember, the Sun is in fall in Libra, Venus' sign. Venus in Leo can be very flirting, very likeable or even loveable, because it craves admiration from other people and does everything in its power to make the other person say: "I love you, you are the best". But that's all that it really wants.  It knows that if it gets involved in a relationship, it will have to make compromises that it is not prepared to make. The other person, however, feels betrayed because, quite naturally, mistook all this flirting for real love. This can be a very seductive Venus, but for all the wrong reasons.

Venus in Sagittarius. Out of the three fire signs, this is perhaps the best fiery Venus. Sagittarius is a sign ruled by Jupiter, which, together with Venus, are the two benefics.  They also share a common love for the sign of Pisces. Sagittarius, however, is a hot and dry sign, like all the fire signs and Venus cannot help but feel uncomfortable in it. Venus in Sagittarius views love as a learning experience. This may be true for most people as love affairs provide us with valuable lessons, but that is not the main reason we get involved with other people. Venus in Sagittarius doesn't really believe in "I want to love and be loved", but rather "Can you help me experience love?" It's like that famous Foreigner song "I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me". It's not the same as needing love. Venus in Sagittarius doesn't need love, it finds it interesting, there's a vast difference. Other people, however, object to this, because they feel they've been used.
Yes, it's passionate and exciting, after all it's a fiery Venus, and that can attract other people, but there's a restlessness in this Venus. Because love is an experience, these people want to experience everything that life as a couple can provide. It is not enough sitting on a couch and holding hands while watching TV. This is boring. The presence of a loved one is never enough. This Venus is always trying to find something new to do, but doesn't understand that this can push people away, not because they are against what this Venus proposes, but because pretty soon they begin to realize that Venus in Sagittarius rarely wants anything else.

The Moon as Mind

In John Frawley’s book, the Real Astrology Applied, there is an interesting article (the Moon as Mind) about the role the Moon plays in determining the nature of the native’s mind. It is not Mercury, Frawley says, the important factor when it comes to mind, because Mercury is a servant and has no morality. If we give Mercury free rein, then we will have no sense of right and wrong and knowledge without morality is no true knowledge. The Sun is “knowledge”, the Moon “intuits” knowledge and Mercury’s role is simply to apply it. Frawley feels that this is the right way to view things, but after the Renaissance, that view was lost and Mercury, the servant, became king.

I feel that Frawley, in this article, by siding completely with the Moon, he underestimates Mercury. It is understandable, since he is a traditional astrologer, to want things to return to the way they were and his efforts to reinsert traditional mentality in the modern view of the cosmos is commendable, given the fact that it was completely put aside by the moderns and any link to tradition is nowadays considered a stupidity, as something obsolete. However, there must be an explanation for this sudden shift in mentality, mustn't it?

The real question, to my mind, is why did this adulation of Mercury actually take place? If everything was going well and the Moon’s view was correct, why was there a need for this radical shift in mentality? Why did Mercury completely take over? Could it be that the Moon, left to her own devices, led to extremes?

If one believes in the concept of the astrological ages, we are on the brink of leaving the age of Pisces and enter the age of Aquarius. This means that we were all experiencing the Jupiter/Mercury polarity (Ascendant/Descendant of the age). Some authors say that it is the Ascendant that lays the rules, but there needs to be a fine balance between Ascendant and Descendant, otherwise the Descendant part of the polarity will rebel, if repressed continuously for a significant amount of time. Jupiter, after some point, was completely out of control and Mercury naturally stepped in.

Jupiter is of course the arch-enemy of Mercury and represents intuitive knowledge. That’s why it rules religion and faith, because faith doesn’t require proof for it to exist. Strongly jupiterian people KNOW that there is a God or whatever else they really believe in and it doesn’t matter to them whether they can prove it or not. They just KNOW. Jupiter is very friendly with the Moon (the Moon exalts Jupiter in her sign) and the Moon shares Jupiter’s mentality. Jupiter, however, is the “fanatic”. One goes to a Catholic monastery and has an epiphany and then the Jupiter/Moon duo makes him say: “Oh my God! This religion business is true! I will become a Catholic!” But if he stopped to think and studied religion objectively, he would realize that all religions have stories of the same nature and these are not - by any means whatsoever - the exclusive privilege of Catholicism.

Mercury, on the other hand, asks the basic question. Do you believe that God exists? OK, prove it to me. If something cannot be proven, I cannot believe in it. Why is this useful? Because it can offer us absolute truths. Anything that is proven can be relied upon. It’s not the chaos of “I think this, you think that” and so on. This knowledge is stable and secure. Granted, it is indeed restrictive, because it allows no room for things that have not been proven yet to exist. But what about the Moon? Can it be equally restrictive?

The Moon’s knowledge comes through experience. The Moon rejoices in the 3^rd house of everyday activity and it is the fastest moving planet. It experiences life and offers that knowledge to the Sun. Experience, however, is overrated. True, you may know something theoretically, but only when you actually experience it can you truly understand it. But this “understanding” is your interpretation. It’s not valid for everybody and therefore the Moon’s knowledge is subjective. The Moon says “Because I’ve experienced so and so in such and such a way, then it is the rule”. No, it isn’t.

Take temperament, for example. A strongly choleric person not only believes that acting upon things is the right way to go through life, but this is actually their own personal experience. When they don’t “do”, nothing happens. So, how can you possibly convince them that inertia is not such a bad thing? A phlegmatic, however, responds: “Yes, not many things happen to me because I prefer idleness, but by a magic twist of fate, the few things that actually matter do happen regardless of whether I do something or not. If I live in constant activity, these important things may pass me by, because I will be too busy to pay any attention.” This is their personal experience. Who is right and who is wrong? They are both right, aren’t they?

This Moon mentality (no proof needed) is mostly evident in traditional books on astrology with all these aphorisms. If so and so is in the 12th house and aspects so and so in the 8^th house, then you will be eaten by wild beasts. Today we laugh at remarks like that and quite rightly so, but it shows the mentality of the astrologers at the time. This was based on the chart of one particular client, but it was foolishly made a rule. The Mercury element was completely absent. Mercury says: “First, test this rigorously and only when it has proven its validity, put that in a book”.

The Moon therefore is dangerously subjective. Do we want objectivity or don’t we? Mercury is not immoral, but amoral. It may be dangerous to live without morals, but morality, whether we like it or not, clouds the thinking process. Frawley cites the computer as an example to show Mercury's lack of morality. The computer doesn’t judge, he says, it processes whatever data you put into it. True, but why is this a bad thing? If I impose my morals or the current morals on knowledge, I may refrain from studying something because it doesn’t agree with them. Morals, however, are prone to change. Is it wise to base knowledge on them?

Frawley also says that Mercury needs to be disciplined. But Mercury is not averse to discipline, Mercury is not an enemy of Saturn. It is the Moon that hates discipline because it is the Moon that receives Saturn in detriment in her own sign.

In conclusion, I don’t believe that this is a question of either/or. Frawley himself agrees on that when he says that in astrology for example we need Mercury - the tools (charts etc.) - to interpret the cosmos, but I believe he favours the Moon too strongly. If we are to eventually reach the truth, both Mercury and the Moon need to be functioning well and none of the two must ever take complete charge. They are equally important. Mercury cannot perceive intangible reality, but the Moon cannot be relied upon to interpret it. It’s a 50-50 process.

Traditional and modern astrology

A fellow astrologer, Felipe Oliveira, posted an article of mine on his very interesting website. Here's the link:

http://westerntraditionalastrology.com/all-topics/traditional-modern-astrology

George Michael imprisoned

I cast a horary chart a couple of weeks ago, when I heard about George's court case. The question was: "Will George Michael go to jail?" This is the chart:

Since George Michael is "any old person" for me, he gets the 7th house. So, he is Mars in his detriment, in the 6th house, the turned 12th. He is guilty (his planet in detriment), but we didn't need horary to tell us that, we knew that already. The 12th house is the house of self-undoing, it is here that we look for habits or behaviours that harm us. Do George's habits harm him? Yes, both the sign and the exaltation ruler of his 12th house (Libra) are there and very strong. He is also there, so he is completely overpowered by them.
But this is a question about jail. Will he go to prison? He is already in the turned 12th, but when I asked the question he was not yet imprisoned. But using the Moon as the flow of events, we see that it first opposed Mars (George) and it is about to oppose the turned 12th house ruler (Venus), translating light from George to prison, thus bringing them together. Which means that yes, he will go to prison.
What seems promising is that first the 12th house ruler (Venus) will enter Scorpio, the sign of its detriment and Mars (George) will soon follow suit, in the sign it rules. So it seems that the shock of this prison sentence may actually prove beneficial for George in the long run, because the chart suggests he will manage to triumph over his long-lasting self-destructive behaviour. Let's hope this will indeed be the case.

Contest horary - Greece vs Spain

I've put off posting this, because I am unsure of the judgement, but finally I said, what the heck, let's do it.
First, the horary chart:

1st house Greece, 7th house Spain. No planets in the aforementioned houses. The Moon may bodily be in the 1st, but it is conjunct the 2nd house cusp and following the 5 degree rule, I consider it a 2nd house planet.
1st house ruler Mercury, 7th house ruler Jupiter. They are both in succedent houses, which are neutral, and they are both retrograde. Not much strength for either of them. Jupiter is in the house of its joy, but not in the same sign as the cusp, making it a very minor testimony.
What REALLY stands out is Mercury's combustion. If it were any other sign (apart from Gemini), then this would be the easiest of judgements. Greece would be destined to lose the game. But here, Mercury is in the sign its rulership and exaltation and, as Frawley puts it, this is kind of like a mutual reception. Yes, combustion is harmful, but Mercury rules the Sun and somehow it manages to cancel out the combustion, or at least its most harmful effects. So, we must look further.
What is the Sun here? The Sun is ruler of the 4th house, "the end of matter", in this case the result. Normally, we wouldn't check this, but in this case I fear we must. What does it mean? The result "loves" Greece and Greece rules it and the aspect is applying, so the result is coming to Greece. I think combustion makes sense here, since Greece is hidden from sight in a way. They haven't shown their full potential and most people, I presume, expect Spain to win, including myself.

What does the event chart say? Since the game with Turkey took place at the same time, the planets haven't moved much since then.

What has changed however, is that Mars is no longer sitting on the cusp, but it is inside the 7th house. Which is very bad for the favourites, in this case Spain presumably. The Moon's role here is interesting. It is the 4th house ruler and normally we would give it to the underdogs, but Frawley advises us to not do that, but keep the Moon as the indicator of the flow of events. We must check the Moon's aspects up to approximately 5 degrees. The Moon's next aspect is a square to Mars, favouring Spain, but its final and DECISIVE aspect is the square to Greece. Unfortunately, this aspect occurs after a little more than 6 degrees. Do we take it into account? I hope so. This could mean that Spain is going to take the lead, but eventually Greece will catch up. The fact that it is beyond the 5 degree limit could mean that we could have some overtime. If that's the case, then Greece should win.

Overall judgement based on the two charts: If I had to make a judgement, although I would have preferred clearer charts, I would pronounce Greece the winner, against all odds, possibly at overtime.

Update: Wrong judgement. Spain won. Now, what was wrong about it? In the event chart, was it the North Node conjunct the 10th cusp, favouring Spain? Maybe, but that Mars placement inside the 7th cusp is a major testimony against Spain winning. That was the reason that I stretched the 5 degree limit for the Moon's aspects, giving the victory to Greece. Perhaps I shouldn't have done so. Or, as Frawley says, it's difficult to make a judgement when the Moon is one of the significators, even though he advises us to keep it as the indicator for the flow of events.
The horary chart? It seems that combustion is destructive even when the combust planet is in its own sign. Or at least, we need more positive testimonies if we are to judge in its favour. And perhaps Jupiter being in the house of its joy isn't so minor a testimony as I thought.

Update 7/3/2016: I no longer use this method and I don't judge charts when there are considerations against judgement present. Here we have the ascendant in early degrees and the combustion of the ascendant ruler.

Contest horary - Greece vs Turkey (FIBA World Championship)

This is a game that takes place tomorrow. I know I usually post these charts after the event, because, let's face it, it's much easier to interpret charts with hindsight, but let's give this a try and see how it goes. First, the horary chart:


Since I support Greece, Greece gets the 1st house and Turkey the 7th. The first thing is to check whether there are planets in these houses. The nodal axis is conjunct these houses, the South Node on Greece and -naturally- the North Node on Turkey. This favours Turkey. Now, what about Pluto on the 7th cusp? Since it is not IN the house, but ON the cusp of the house, it controls that house. Under normal circumstances, we would exclude Pluto and the other outer planets from our reading, but now that sits exactly on the cusp, it must mean something. But what? In event charts, it favours the underdogs, but this is not an event chart, but a horary one. Let's leave it aside for a while and check the rest of the testimonies.
Accidental dignity of the rulers: The Moon (Greece) is in the 11th house and Saturn (Turkey) in the 4th. Saturn is angular and therefore more powerful, but it is not in the same sign as the cusp. If it were, we would stop here and pronounce Turkey as the winner. Still, Turkey seems to have the upper hand.
As far as essential dignity goes, both teams are in the signs of their exaltation. The Moon is also in its own triplicity and Saturn in its own term. Therefore, they are both essentially dignified with a slight advantage for Greece, much more so considering that Saturn is in the face of the Moon (Greece) making the Moon one of Saturn's rulers. But that's a minor testimony.
The Moon also has lots of light and trines the Sun in Virgo, which is in the Moon's triplicity, meaning this is a friendly aspect. Saturn on the other hand is involved in a tight T-square with Pluto and Jupiter. If we take Jupiter as the referee (ruler of the 10th house), then the referee doesn't like Turkey (Jupiter in Saturn's fall), but that doesn't say much especially since it is totally indifferent to Greece.
Shall we take a look at the 4th house (the end of the matter)? Its ruler is Mercury, slightly favouring the Moon (Greece) by being in its triplicity.
So, bearing in mind Turkey's angularity and the position of the nodal axis, Turkey has major testimonies in its favour. The minor testimonies (essential dignity) favour Greece, but is it enough to make Greece the winner? I doubt it. My other reservation is the role of Pluto and how it will play out. So, I decided to cast the event chart in the hope of clarifying things further.
This is the event chart:


This chart favours the favourites (1st house). Its ruler (Mars) sits right on the cusp of the 7th house and therefore controls it. Yes, the opponent is highly dignified, both essentially and accidentally, but the position of Mars overrules any other testimony. What's more, the Part of Fortune is conjunct the North Node which also favours the favourites. Now, we must decide which is the favourite. Before the start of the championships, Greece was placed higher than Turkey regarding the possibility of winning the Championship. But what about this particular game? I've seen bookmaker sites giving Turkey as the favourite and I think rightly so.
So, based on the horary chart and on the assumption that Turkey are the favourites, Turkey should win the game.
Let's see how this turns out.

Update: Turkey won.

Contest horary - Nadal vs Murray

This is the chart I cast for the match between World No 1 Nadal and Andy Murray in the Roger's Cup.


I supported Murray, so he gets the 1st house ruler (Saturn) and Nadal the 7th (Moon). First and foremost we consider accidental dignity. None of the two planets is angular. Saturn is in the 8th house and the Moon in the 9th. Not much accidental dignity for either of them. Frawley considers the 8th house weaker than the 9th, even though succedent, which gives Nadal a slight advantage. Since there is no great discrepancy in power, we need to check essential dignity. Murray is by far the strongest of the two, with Saturn being in the sign of its exaltation, triplicity and term! The Moon on the other hand is peregrine and not only that but it exalts Saturn, its opponent, which is not a good sign according to Frawley.
The Moon is also in the via combusta (between 15 Libra and 15 Scorpio), a serious affliction, but it is also closely conjunct Spica (though separating), a fortunate fixed star.
It seems that all that impressive essential dignity was enough to enable Murray to win. He won in straight sets.

More Wimbledon horaries

Here are two more horary charts that I cast for Wimbledon matches:

This was about the fourth round match between Federer and Meltzer. As always, I supported Federer, so he gets the 1st house and Meltzer the 7th. In this chart both the players' significators are in angular houses and Meltzer's (Jupiter) is in its own house, the 7th. However, it's in a different sign than that of the cusp, making it less strong. Federer (Mercury) is in the 10th house in the same sign as the MC. What's more, Mercury is cazimi, being within 17' away from the Sun. Traditionally, this is a very powerful position. The ancients believed that if a planet is found so close to the Sun, it is not combust, which is a severe affliction, but instead nothing can harm the planet as it is in the heart of the Sun. There are some astrologers (traditional ones even) that do not differentiate between combust and cazimi and claim that the planet is equally afflicted. In this case however, cazimi proved its strength. Federer was completely untroubled and at no point of the game did Meltzer pose a serious threat.



This is the chart of the quarter-final match between Federer and Berdych, the eventual finalist. Both significators are strong. Federer's on the cusp of the 11th house, a fortunate house and Berdych's in the 10th. By accidental dignity alone, Berdych is a lot stronger being on the MC. But not only that, since Mars (Federer) is in the triplicity, term and face (!!!) of Venus (Berdych), which means that Venus has the upper hand. And so it proved. Berdych won pretty convincingly and Federer had to settle for one set only.

Astrologer charts - Liz Greene and John Frawley

Since both charts are included in the Astrodata Bank for everyone to see, they are not private any more, if they ever were. What's more, I'm not interested in character analysis, but I want to focus on their approach towards astrology and how this is depicted in their charts. I also want to state from the beginning that I am a HUGE fan of both, no matter how impossible this may seem to some of you. Liz Greene is considered the leading contemporary psychological astrologer and John Frawley is one of the most famous traditional astrologers that opposes - sometimes violently- psychological astrology. Their approaches may be completely different, but in my opinion they have both done astrology a world of good.

This is Liz Greene's chart:


And John Frawley's:

Both charts have an "A" Rodden rating, because the data source is from memory and not from a birth certificate. Liz Greene's time of birth seems very precise, probably a result of rectification on her part.
How do we approach this? I suggest we start with the natural ruler of astrology. Mercury, for the traditional astrologers and Uranus for the modern ones. Both these rulers present us with problems. Traditional astrologers say that Uranus cannot possibly be the ruler of astrology since it is the planet directly associated with the Enlightenment which marked the death of astrology. On the other hand, in traditional astrology we seem to have a contradiction. Astrology is a 9th house matter (higher knowledge) whose natural ruler (following the order of the planets) is Jupiter. But Jupiter and Mercury are arch-enemies. Based on the signs they rule, they both receive each other in detriment. So, how can a 9th house, Jupiter-associated matter be ruled by Mercury?
Of course one could argue that in order for something to be reborn, it has to die first and that's why Uranus killed astrology, so that it can resurface with a new face. On the other hand, astrology may be a 9th house matter, but we have to use Mercury in order to decode it. For astrology to become accessible, it can't stay forever in Jupiter's realm. God, not only has to be intuitively experienced, but intellectually understood.
Both astrologers have a strong Uranus. Frawley's Uranus is angular, conjunct an exalted Jupiter which also adds a religious tone to his astrology or his personality in general. Indeed, Frawley is deeply religious, a practicing Catholic, and he doesn't see a contradiction in these two. Greene's Uranus is also in the 7th house, but not in the same sign as the descendant. However, it is conjunct the North Node and makes wonderful trines with Mars (her ascendant ruler), an essentially dignified Venus in Libra and Jupiter (a natural benefic, although by far inferior to Frawley's exceptional Jupiter). She also has a close Moon-Uranus opposition while her Sun is applying to form a T-square with Moon and Uranus. I thinks this makes her more Uranian than Frawley, combined with the fact that her Saturn is in a dreadful state (cadent and in detriment), while Frawley is deeply involved with Saturn (his ascendant ruler, conjunct the MC, opposing his Sun). No wonder Greene's book on Uranus is perhaps her best yet. This is also an indication that Greene wanted to "revolutionize" astrology, for better or for worse, whereas Frawley stayed close to tradition.
They also have a strong Mercury, both of them. Frawley has a Mercury in Gemini and Greene a Mercury in Virgo. Again, Greene's Mercury seems to fare a little better than Frawley's. It is in Virgo, the sign of both its rulership and exaltation and in the same sign as the MC. Frawley's Mercury is in a succedent house and in the sixth house from the Ascendant. However, Greene's Mercury is under the Sun beams and moving towards combustion, while Frawley's Mercury is at a safe distance from the Sun.
Besides the Uranus-Saturn element that separates them there are some other very interesting differences. Frawley's 9th house (higher mind) ruler is in the 3rd, while Greene's 3rd house (lower mind) ruler is in the 9th. Which naturally means that they are in the signs of their detriment. On the face of it, this is not a good thing. We don't want a house ruler being in the opposite house it rules, because this may be an indication of distorted judgement. How can we interpret it in this case? We could say that Greene wants to take the lower mind to a higher level, but this is a problem because she regards astrology a lower mind issue that needs to be cleared of its "impurities", namely tradition. She has stated in interviews that she hated being considered a sort of "lunatic" because of her involvement with astrology and wanted to prove to the world that astrology is a serious matter. This could be a problem, because she may have tried to shape astrology into something that would be more easily acceptable by the current zeitgeist, for which fate is anathema. Or we could say that she allows the lower mind (the current zeitgeist or a scientific world-view) "pollute" her astrology. No more talk about good and evil in the traditional sense, just psychological states. On the plus side, she can easily make a profession out of astrology (9th house ruler conjunct the MC) and Saturn, even though in the sign of its detriment, it is in its own terms and face. Not the best Saturn, but the best place for a Saturn in Leo to be.
For Frawley, it is exactly the opposite scenario. He wants to take the higher mind to a lower state. This could be interpreted as aiming to make astrology accessible to the masses. Indeed, he has done a wonderful job at it. His books are probably the most coherent, clear, precise and easily understandable astrology books on the market. However, one could argue that he downgrades the spiritual side of astrology, despite the fact that God gets frequently mentioned in his books, by heavily focusing on prediction and shying away from deep character analysis. Perhaps his eagerly anticipated book on natal astrology will change all that. What seems to be in his favour is that his 3rd and 9th house rulers are in a sextile relationship with each other, whereas Greene's are inconjunct.
Another major difference between the two charts is that Greene's nativity is strongly diurnal, while Frawley's strongly nocturnal. Greene's Sun is at the height of its power, on the MC, but Frawley's Sun is at the lowest part of the heavens. Which means that Greene has a solar personality, more interested in the spiritual side of life (not in the metaphysical sense), while Frawley has a lunar personality, more interested in everyday existence. Another indication that Greene's astrology leans more towards the theoretical, while Frawley's leans more towards the practical. What's more, Frawley's Moon is in a very good condition. Although waning, it is a cold and wet planet in a cold and wet sign and in a wonderful mutual reception with an angular Jupiter. If you use the whole sign house system, it is also in the 3rd house, the house of its joy. Another point in Frawley's favour is that there is a mixed mutual reception between his angular Sun and Venus (his 9th house ruler), so his Venus finds her way to the IC, one of the angles. And of course, how could he avoid traditional astrology with the Sun in Taurus, a conservative sign, opposing Saturn in Scorpio? This is a common aspect among traditional astrologers.
I can't help wondering what kind of book they would have written together, both analyzing the same charts from their own perspective. When hell freezes over, they will both probably answer.

Jupiter in Pisces - sign predictions

Jupiter is the Great Benefic and all of us are looking forward to its transits and progressions. Naturally Jupiter, like every other planet can behave well, very well or badly even. Its favourite signs are Sagittarius, Pisces and Cancer and the signs in which he feels terribly uncomfortable, are Gemini, Virgo and Capricorn.
Which tells us, first of all, that the jupiterian principle is antithetical to the mercurial one. Mercury represents empirical knowledge, the knowledge that can be tested and is formed through trial and error. Jupiter, on the other hand, represents intuitive knowledge that comes from within. It's the kind of knowledge, for example, like when you read a book and even though it's just a theory of a certain author, suddenly you feel it, you know it's true, you don't care if it's proven or not. Which means that Gemini and Virgo have a problem with that and this may be a bizarre transit for you, regardless of what you might read in predictions elsewhere. Depending on which natal house is affected, you may, for example, fall in love with a person that you would normally find unsuitable or find a job that satisfies you but doesn't offer any assurance or stability. This may be a time for expansion of consciousness, but this expansion in your case is going to come from a source that you are not used to. It can be quite beneficial in the long run, but only if you can succumb, albeit temporarily, to Jupiter's charms.
Leo, Aquarius, Aries and Libra are signs that are inconjunct to Pisces, so your Sun at least, is not affected by this transit. You should check your natal chart and find which planets will be form strong aspects with this Jupiter and which house Jupiter will be transiting this year.
Pisces is by far the sign that will benefit the most from this transit. Jupiter is their ruler and now it's coming home. If your Sun is angular, you also have natal Jupiter in Pisces and you are born around 28/02, then this could be a year to remember in the area(s) affected. The third decanate of Pisces, especially those born on the last days of the sign, will receive three Jupiter transits, but the downside is that you still have Uranus there and Saturn is going to return for a brief amount of time to Virgo, around the same time as your first Jupiter transit. First of all, this means that Jupiter will intensify Uranus and Uranus is not a planet that can easily be discarded. At the time of the Jupiter/Saturn opposition, try to keep your head on your shoulders and don't surrender completely to Jupiter.
What Jupiter usually brings about is hunger. Suddenly, you want to do stuff. Things that were on your mind but you thought you could never accomplish or you simply didn't feel that it was the right time, you can now develop the necessary optimism and courage. All of a sudden, you want more, what you already have is not enough. That's why Jupiter suits the water signs, because they are eternally hungry, literally and metaphorically. Cancer, therefore, is a sign that absolutely loves Jupiter. This is a very good transit for them, especially for the third decanate. The second decanate will have a Saturn transit from the autumn onwards, so keep in mind that your luck may run out at the end of the year, if you are not careful. The first decanate is already going through the Saturn/Pluto square and they would have preferred to have this wonderful Jupiter transit at another time. However, this transit can give them hope that whatever difficulties you are experiencing at the moment will go away eventually.
Scorpio may be a water sign. but find it difficult to open up, as it doesn't trust people that much. Which means that Jupiter will have a lot of work to do in order to make them relax. Should it succeed, this can be a very fruitful year for Scorpios and Scorpio Ascendants.
Sagittarius is a sign ruled by Jupiter, so they always follow the jupiterian principle, no matter what kind of aspect it forms with their Sun, so this transit is not going to be a problem for them. Again, the third decanate needs to be extra careful with the Saturn and Uranus transits. Taurus and Capricorn are going to receive a sextile from Jupiter, which is fine. Taurus, being a Venus-ruled sign is very much motivated by pleasure and Jupiter doesn't have a problem with that. For Capricorns, this could be an even better Jupiter transit than in 2008, when Jupiter was transiting their sign, because Jupiter suffocates in Capricorn and cannot show its true face.

Tragic death of astrologer - Fate and free will

A fellow astrologer died recently, someone I knew and worked with, even though we'd had very few personal contacts. Her death was so unexpected and sudden, that the news practically shocked all her acquaintances. She died after having undergone - supposedly- minor surgery, a surgery she chose to have and not for health reasons. After the initial shock, I naturally ran through her charts trying to find some sort of explanation, some sort of indication that this was about to happen. I know that some people prefer not to deal with this sort of questions, but death is a part of life and if astrology deals with all the aspects of life, then perhaps it has something to say about death as well.

I must say beforehand, however, that it has not yet been determined whether the time of death can be safely predicted or not from a natal chart. It is a very difficult matter and it raises all sorts of questions about fate and free will. John Frawley in his forthcoming book on natal astrology says that the natal chart is about the body, but we also have souls. Does that mean that there is a limit to what the natal chart can tell us and that sometimes the soul intervenes and alters the pattern? I'm not sure. The book isn't out yet, so I can't say for certain what he means by that.

But the question still stands. The fact that we seem to be unable to predict a lot of things with any scientifically valid amount of accuracy, is it because the soul steps in or is it because our astrology is still in an infantile stage? And more importantly, why should the soul intervene? If the soul is using the body to experience every possible aspect of life, why would it change anything? The soul doesn't care whether a particular experience is pleasant to the body or not, it just wants to find out what it feels like. If we had unlimited free will, wouldn't our choices be severely restricted? Who would choose to die young, who would choose poverty, who would choose poor health, who would choose the loss of loved ones, who would choose unemployment, who would choose alcoholism, who would choose abuse and so on. The questions are endless. Shouldn't we co-operate with our fate and try to find out exactly what that is? Because only then will we have a chance of actually controlling it and perhaps change something in the process, should we feel the need to do so. So, instead of secretly "rejoicing" when a prediction goes wrong and declare the triumph of free will, I think we must strive to achieve scientific accuracy in our predictions.
Thankfully, horary astrology is much simpler than natal astrology in this regard. It concerns only a limited amount of time and the events it describes have already started taking their course, whether by choice or fate, so we don't have to worry about ethical objections and our personal ideology concerning astrology. Still, how do we use it? Do we actually read a horary chart or do we see only what we want to see? The astrologer I mentioned in the beginning of this post, cast this horary chart before her operation, asking if her doctor is the best possible one. This is the chart:


Of course she had decided to go for the operation regardless of this chart and that raises another question whether we ourselves believe in the validity of astrology. What's the use of erecting charts if we have already decided on our course of action? Anyway, on the face of it, this chart seems to give a positive answer. The doctor (Mercury) is in the 10th house and therefore accidentally strong and about to trine Jupiter, her significator. She did say that she liked the doctor and had confidence in him. So, that was that and she went ahead. That was the answer she wanted and she didn't look any further perhaps. But what is the actual condition of this Mercury? It is under the sun beams, which is not such a severe affliction as being combust, but it is also about to go combust. Which means, that his condition was increasingly worsening. She may have thought that the trine with Jupiter was going to happen first, so she didn't pay any attention to combustion. But this chart also has Mars, the natural ruler of surgery in the 8th house of death. She may have thought that this is not so bad, as Mars has recently left Cancer, the sign of its fall, and so it is not so threatening. But in this chart, Mars' condition actually got worse if we take receptions into account. From Cancer, Mars liked Jupiter (herself) and was ruled by the Moon (her second significator). So Mars had no power over her, but instead she had power over the surgery. From Leo however and still in the 8th house, Mars got stronger and her power was lost. Even more importantly, the Moon was about to enter the sign of its fall (Scorpio), from where it would square Mars. Mars is also the ruler of the 4th house, which signifies the end of matter. So, in this case "end of matter" equals 8th house, the house of death. When would that happen? In approximately 4 time units. It couldn't be hours or days, because the operation would take place at a later date and of course it couldn't be months or years, because the operation was imminent. So, this leaves weeks, as the only logical time unit. She died four weeks exactly after having asked this horary question.
Naturally, it's easy to be wise in retrospect. What would I have said had I seen this horary chart (I found out about this chart after her death) when it was asked? Would I have said "No, don't have the operation, because you are going to die?" No, probably not. This was not a life-threatening operation, more like a run-of-the-mill one. Perhaps I would have simply urged caution, but, not expecting any real danger, I might have interpreted the chart quite differently. And this is another serious problem with our interpretations. How much of what we say is actually based on the chart and how much comes out of our personal views and limitations?