Minderwiz
I
Anyway...my question is....say one of these planets is the ruler of Lot of Spirit and they sit in 11th house from lot of fortune, so does that change the meaning of any of these planets especially let's say Mercury considering the qualities could be good or bad?
I don't have a chart for example just because it's a theoretical question.
I'm just beginning reading both of your notes. So maybe you two have already discuss this possibility and I haven't come across it yet.
The nature of the planets won't change, from what Valens describes, but your interepretation of the ruler of the Lot and how fortune plays out in their lives will be. The best place for the ruler to be is one where it's angular to the Lot itself and also configured to the Ascendant (preferably a trine or sextile, though the other aspects will still be better than being averse to the Ascendant. The role of the ruler is to indicate how well the person is able to anticipate changes in their environment, rather than simply being taken by surprise and having to react to those changes. Being in the eleventh from Fortune is good for acquisitions but bear in mind the sect of the chart and whether the planet is in sect. So Mercury and Moon will still indicate the likelihood of gains and losses throughout life, but out of sect, the losses may be worse than the gains, especially if they are also afflicted by one of the malefics (certainly if it's the out of sect malefic)
Minderwiz... I need you to lend some of the history knowledge you hold.
Illiterate comes up in old writing. I know what illiterate means, but in modern times and in the 1st world country....there are still people that go to school and come out not knowing how to read or write. I have seen that. But, it is few, but still can be a good percentage. Now could illiterate mean something different for this day and age vs back when valens wrote about it? Could illiterate also mean/including someone who doesn't gain knowledge through writings or books? There are people out here that can read and write, but they gain their knowledge through word of mouth than through books and writing.
I had a quick look at the two references to illiterate people in Book II. I think we are looking at people who are unable to learn either to read or right (though they have the opportunity to do so) and as a consequence are unable to learn from books, or other written sources.
From context, Valens is not referring to people who never got the chance to learn but to people who are unable to learn because of intellectual deficiency, either in terms of the process of reading and writing or in being able to understand what they are reading.
I've got your PM and I'll send you the word version (docx) .