One of the most important branches of traditional astrology is called Horary Astrology. Is the chart casted for a question made, in a concrete way, by the querent to the astrologer. Good blogs on horary astrology are Gryphonastrology and Ask Cristine. Examples of these questions are things like “will I marry X ?”, “where is my lost object?” and “what is the cause of my disease?”.
One of the controversial points in Horary is how to apply the “considerations before judgement”. They are a set of rules that help the astrologer to judge the chart, to see if it is “radical”. The controversial points arise from misunderstandings… many people think that if a chart is not approved by the considerations, than the chart “can´t be judged”. Of course it can ! Others think that, because the chart can be judged, even when it breaked almost all of the considerations, proves that the considerations are worthless. That is also not true.
What is radicality?
Radicality is the equivalent in traditional astrology of “validity” in psychology. How to know beforehand if our chart is valid, meaning that it describes correctly the situation and its results ?
Christopher Warnock says that the Considerations before Judgment are internal measurements of the chart´s validity. They are in-build systems of validation. There are also, of course, the external parameters of validation. Lee Lehman says that she would never judge a chart that in which she can´t clearly see the situation as presented by querent. Let´s imagine the question “My boss is an ogre. How can I live with him ? Will I get a promotion or another job so I can get the hell away from him?”. Now we cast the chart and we see that the ruler of the boss is venus exalted in pisces, in trine to the ruler of the ASC. Well, there is something wrong here !
The Considerations can be imagined as fail-safe mechanisms: in my experience, two or more considerations presented are real red-flags that have to be noticed.
What is radicality (2)?
Although the idea of validation is interesting, the real meaning of radicality is the idea of what is the “root” of the question. The text of Ben Dykes shows that what is radical is not really the chart. Is the question which has or hasn´t radicality or “roots”.
That´s why horaries are so limited. We can´t ask anything mechanically. We can´t ask the lottery numbers. We can´t ask everyday “will it rain today?”. We can´t ask questions that are vague in nature (will something important happen to me this year ?).
And there are that great huge of questions that we CAN ask, but we probably shouldn´t ! Deborah Houlding´s Questioning our horaries gives several examples of this kinds of questions, their “sins” separated in the pointless, the idle, base, dishonest question, undisciplined impatience and trivial questioning.
Of those questions, I would put the “dishonest question” as the most tricky for the astrologer. Having recently reviewed a great number of horaries in my personal practice and in forums, I think there are two factors that are accountable for mistakes in judging an horary:
1- choosing the wrong set of houses and
2- when the querent is asking and dishonest question.
Examples of Dishonest Question´s
Dishonest questions are not obviously done in malice. They are done because the querent wants to “save face” , do not want to face a difficult situation or simply want to “test” the astrologer. One or more of these factors make the querent ask a question that is not really what he wants to hear. Examples:
- ” Will my boss get his promotion ?” – when the real question is “will I get a promotion?”
- “Will X broke up with Y” – when the real question should be “will I have a relationship with X?”
- “Will my aunt die ?”- when the querent is ashamed of asking “Will I get her money?”
- “Will my friend A answer my email ?” – when the real question is “Will we become lovers?”
- “Will my sister get a new job ?” – and not “when she will finally get out of my house?”
In all of these cases, if the astrologer try to answer the question, as received, he will only lost his time. Some astrologers think that we should always strictly follow the wording of the question. I think that is a dangerous thing to do, as many of the questions we receive have problems in focus or formulation.
One real problem that led me to pay more attention to the considerations before judgment was when a girl asked “Will my boyfriend, in his vacations, hook up with his ex-girlfriend”. Turn out he wasn´t her boyfriend, or ever was, and the questioning was totally delusional.
Notice that we are not here judging the moral or ethical aspect of if we should judge a chart or not. This aspect is also important, but unfortunately astrologers are more and more willingly to receive questions that are idle, immoral or just plain gossip.
How to use the Considerations before judgement to help avoid white lies and Dishonest Questions ?
That we will cover in the second part. Bye.