Thanks for your interest in my paper. The story is, it has actually been ’shelved’ for quite a few years and greatly needs rework. It’s technically two ‘papers’ to date, where some repetition is obvious (likely a bit tedious?). Although, I am now galvanized to give it the ‘phoenix’ treatment (if I can manage time, also embarking on study in ancient Greek and ancient Greek history amongst other things). I am just soooo glad to see some applied serious sect consideration continuing. I’ll see what I can do.

Re your follow-up on the qualitative/quantitative (strength) point – yeah, I lean to the qualitative argument. Although I know I gave an example regarding the likes of a ‘Sun not appearing so strong, or a Moon seemingly more dominant’. I guess I mean qualitatively/essentially dominant, or ‘present’. Seems with sect it is the typos of the concerned body’s action that has to adjust, aside from it’s actual power.

Like, imagine a nocturnal predator having to get about in the day. It may be out of base context but it still has legs, claws and teeth, it can still naturally do it’s thing and is perhaps on the burdened/aggravated side, thus active/reactive in temperament – but not necessarily weakened. Hence the tendency in the texts for any planet to be presented likely of more benefit when ‘in sect’, or in it’s most natural of contexts to begin with. Hence, vice versa generally stated about less benefit likely when in unnatural ‘out of sect’ context. With ‘extreme’ malefics, it’s significant Saturn is ‘more comfortable’ in diurnal context (the ‘warming’/light brings ‘balance’) and Mars best in nocturnal context (the ‘cooling’/dark brings ‘balance’). Reflecting on core assignation already belonging to a body, or not, gives subtle understanding.

Also, it cannot be avoided, Dorotheus does include an ‘especially’ about the ‘masculine’/diurnal zodiac sign and there is also the factor of Saturn, of intrinsic diurnal sect, in a diurnal nativity, being in positive aspect to the prime diurnal body, the Sun, its sect leader. All symbolism layers off the primary sect factor as holding great positive potential. The delineation then adjusts upon the situation being off a nocturnal base. In this case it is still quite positive, but has a sense of burden put upon it. I don’t think all Sun trine Saturns are to necessarily be ‘wealthy, famous’, etc. What this example demonstrates most of all are clues to the action of sect consideration. Certainly, the interpretive shift seems essentially qualitative.

I would still argue that sect is more of a qualitative measurement, in altering the quality of a planet’s significations so that they are more positive or negative, rather than making a planet ’stronger’ or ‘weaker’.

In the example you cited with Jupiter I would still argue that the distinction in the delineation is more about whether or not Jupiter is able to express his more positive significations, or if those significations will be somewhat inhibited or downplayed in the chart.

That is to say, one can have a perfectly strong and prominent Jupiter or Saturn placement by having them in their own signs and in an angle, but the nature of the types of significations those planets are able to express in the chart will largely depend on sect.

I know that there are some people who practice Hellenistic astrology nowadays who say that sect is more of a quantitative measurement, or they will sometimes simply say that a planet is stronger or weaker according to sect, but I would simply have to disagree.

Re Donna:

Is their a copy of your paper on sect available somewhere? I’d be interested in checking it out.

In early days of hellenistic ‘rediscovery’ Project Hindsight commented on sect being perhaps one of the ‘most important’ ancient astrological features they had come across – I agree. So much, I did an in-depth paper on it (“The Lost Doctrine of Sect”…). This explored the entire (known) history of sect, questioning why it became ‘lost’, it also addressed deeper informing principles related to ancient history, philosophy, and mythic aspects. After undertaking and completing this exercise, I consider sect to be a most fundamental factor, both as an applied technique and for the philosophical/metaphorical thinking it promotes. Sect opens a door to increased depth of thought on the primary components constituting horoscopy – especially the most important, the lights/planets. It is significant that ancient authors have applied sect doctrine laced through their commentary.

Sect may be considered an elementary ‘contextual bedrock’ (I also use the analogy of an ‘ecosystem’), from which to proceed with further delineation, as you have alluded to. Certainly, a layering of mitigating symbolism follows, which is the true ‘art’ of full astrological ‘judgment’. But we have to really start somewhere in unfolding the overall delineation process. Often, a difficulty is displayed in ‘how to begin’ chart analysis. Sect doctrine supplies a clear point of discipline for commencement.

What else may support why this ancient awareness is worthy? (of course, whilst always remaining aware of the further mitigating astrology)
Well, it is supremely elegant in honouring duality, a bottomline symbolism in astrology and life. Sect particularly honours the principles of the two Lights, offering much fodder for exploring a lot of baseline questioning, (here’s a simple example, a ‘Sun’ not appearing so strong, or a ‘Moon’ seemingly more dominant – not to mention the ‘presence’ other sect-mates enhanced,or not). Additionally, no Sun, no Moon, equals no astrology (or life) as we know it!

Then, there’s the obvious – the actual rhythm, or ‘breath’ (to the ancients) of Night and Day! In our modern world we see how out of touch humanity is becoming with this fundamental experience. Especially the shifting ‘light’ factore contained in this cycle. ‘24/7′ just wasn’t part of originally structuring the astrological system. For what it’s worth, there’s a relationship here to what Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are really about – (which I class as ‘grand malefics’, as far as my current thinking goes), but I won’t digress too much. Suffice to say, doctrine and extension regarding sect may aid in giving these so-called modern planets a certain context (among other things in the ancient history of astrological tradition).

Sect, as subtle and old as it is, I believe, is a crucial doctrine to keep exploring. As with all of astrology’s ‘heritage’, it is the reality of time, deep reflection and proper application, which is vital. A return to astrological elegance is promised in such a rediscovery.

Cheers, again, from Oz.

Did really sect had only that “qualitative” streak? There are some passages where sect is employed also as a “quantitative” indicator, as in the judgement of monies, in which benefic planets out of sect give less than if they were in sect.

Its not to you (as you have a defined position), but I think some contemporary Astrologers who practices hellenistic concepts changes the role of sect when it is convenient to them, sometimes in quantity, sometimes in quantity. An irritant behaviour who is responsible for the insecurity of Astrologers like me to put into practice this doctrine.

In a occasion, an Astrologer who I admire said, when he was delineating a diurnal nativity, that Saturn was Strong in afflicting because he was a sect malefic. Isnt that ambiguous? If Saturn is less malefic in diurnal nativities, he would afflict less… Strange.

My chart is diurnal and I have Saturn in the seventh sign, but my problems has a mars nature: fall from a height and a broken tibia, suceeded by an osteomielitis… All in Mercury-Mars Firdaria.

(My chart is another example of malefics out of sect: 27/03/1982, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 7:00 AM).