Sure beats the old “Head+Wall-Sanity=Lot of Tedium” method. Here’s Chris Brennan giving a visual explanation. So the algebraic formulas we use today seem to remove us from this concept of a Lot being cast out from the Ascendant. In this sense they are somewhat like houses which divide the horizon by planetary arcs instead of by signs (I prefer Whole Sign Houses, an elegant division for dubiously civilized ages). Lots are simply taking this exact separation between two planets in a natal chart as being significant for that planetary combination, and examining it in relation to the Ascendant. In other contexts, the distance between planets is fairly crucial, in the examination of planets in aspect, as well as for recurrence transits, and the even more specific phase angle return. It’s the distance between two planets projected from the Ascendant. Why should we use Lots? Aren’t they completely arbitrary? Aren’t they just more infinite mincing and parsing of the natal chart to extract whatever information we want out of it? Well, let’s consider what a Lot really is. Okay whoa, whoa, wait a second, back up here. The term ‘Lots’ capture the original idea from Plato’s Timaeus of souls casting lots for different destinies, just like the Lots are cast out from the Ascendant. This is sort of a misnomer, since they are not Arabic and the term “Parts” isn’t incredibly descriptive at best and um, suggestive and euphemistic at worst. Before I adopted the term Lots, I knew them as Arabic Parts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |