Paul
Hello all --
John Frawley's Horary Textbook arrived last night, because I've been bitten by the Horary bug, or the Horary Hex has been cast, or I'm doing the Horary Hustle, and I'll stop...
It was at once an exhilerating quick review of the book, and a bit anxiety producing. Why? Well, I think I'm reading some substantially new ways to read a chart that depart from what I've read so far. Or, maybe others have departed from Frawley.
For example, he speaks about how the type of aspect (square, opposition, trine, etc) of two planets tells you subtle information about the connection, but that there is an affirmative connection nonetheless, indicating a "yes" to connection. He uses an illustration of going to Vegas and winning money, and how each angle, even the negative ones such as square and opposition, show money won, but subtleties of that winning. O.k. -- that was new to me. Thus far, an opposition or square has tended to mean not a productive connection, as per what I've read with Lehman, Louis, and online.
Also, I noticed a totally new timing method than, say Lehman's. I have to sit down and carefully analyze it.
Often, it seems Frawley says, "Do it this way, or your judgments will be wrong!" Gulp.
Anyway, I know he is the King, and his book appears at first glance to be top notch. I just wondered other impressions about his variances from what I've seen, say Lehman and Louis say on angles and timing.
John Frawley's Horary Textbook arrived last night, because I've been bitten by the Horary bug, or the Horary Hex has been cast, or I'm doing the Horary Hustle, and I'll stop...
It was at once an exhilerating quick review of the book, and a bit anxiety producing. Why? Well, I think I'm reading some substantially new ways to read a chart that depart from what I've read so far. Or, maybe others have departed from Frawley.
For example, he speaks about how the type of aspect (square, opposition, trine, etc) of two planets tells you subtle information about the connection, but that there is an affirmative connection nonetheless, indicating a "yes" to connection. He uses an illustration of going to Vegas and winning money, and how each angle, even the negative ones such as square and opposition, show money won, but subtleties of that winning. O.k. -- that was new to me. Thus far, an opposition or square has tended to mean not a productive connection, as per what I've read with Lehman, Louis, and online.
Also, I noticed a totally new timing method than, say Lehman's. I have to sit down and carefully analyze it.
Often, it seems Frawley says, "Do it this way, or your judgments will be wrong!" Gulp.
Anyway, I know he is the King, and his book appears at first glance to be top notch. I just wondered other impressions about his variances from what I've seen, say Lehman and Louis say on angles and timing.