![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Conflict Charts in Geomancy
Feb. 11th, 2020 01:59 pmIn The Art and Practice of Geomancy, John Michael Greer presents a useful technique for judging the geomantic house chart in questions involving conflict or competition. He outlines the basic format beginning on page 135: the querent (or the side/party favored by the querent) is in the first house, the opposing individual/side/party is directly opposite, in the seventh house, and the object for which the are competing is located in the house appropriate to that item. Examples: in a literal war for the control of territory or a battlefield the goal is in house IV; victory in an election or political contest is in X; etc. Whichever of the first two signifiers (the querent or the opponent) perfects to the goal will be successful. In my experience, this has proven to be an effective technique.
Later in the text (pp. 155–156), JMG suggests an application of the same technique to the decision about whether or not to move to a new home. On his telling, the querent is (of course) in house I, the current home is IV, and the potential new home is VII. Here, the last piece does not make sense. The potential new home belongs not in the VII, but in the X. Let me explain.
In the chart for a literal war, the opponent (VII) is opposed to the querent (I) and striving for control of the land. Thus, the signifiers of the two contending sides are configured by an opposition in their natural houses, while the goal is somewhere else in the chart. In the case of relocation, the goal is the querent himself, while the two homes are competing for him. Thus, the potential new home should have its natural house not opposite the querent, but opposite its “adversary” the old home. In other words, the old home is in IV, while the new home is in house X. Whichever of these perfects to the first house (of the querent) is the better choice. If both perfect, then the querent has two good options, and the further details of the chart may provide useful guidance as to why, exactly, he stands to benefit from each. If neither perfects, then perhaps it’s time to look for a third alternative: neither staying in the current location, nor moving to the proposed site, but finding somewhere else to go.
This technique can be extended to many other cases where the querent is deciding between two (groups of) options. For example, in deciding whether to leave one’s current job for a new position, the current job is in X, while the potential new job is opposite this in IV.
The technique is limited, of course, in that it will not work for questions involving the VII house, since the opposite house is I, already taken by the querent. (A parallel limitation occurs in JMG’s version.)
We thus have two techniques for what I have taken to calling “conflict charts”: The method described in the first paragraph here (and by JMG) is used when the querent himself is a party to a conflict or competition, or is emotionally invested in a competitor. The method I present in the third paragraph is used when the querent is trying to decide between opposing options for himself; that is, when the two options are the “competitors” and the querent is the prize.
Later in the text (pp. 155–156), JMG suggests an application of the same technique to the decision about whether or not to move to a new home. On his telling, the querent is (of course) in house I, the current home is IV, and the potential new home is VII. Here, the last piece does not make sense. The potential new home belongs not in the VII, but in the X. Let me explain.
In the chart for a literal war, the opponent (VII) is opposed to the querent (I) and striving for control of the land. Thus, the signifiers of the two contending sides are configured by an opposition in their natural houses, while the goal is somewhere else in the chart. In the case of relocation, the goal is the querent himself, while the two homes are competing for him. Thus, the potential new home should have its natural house not opposite the querent, but opposite its “adversary” the old home. In other words, the old home is in IV, while the new home is in house X. Whichever of these perfects to the first house (of the querent) is the better choice. If both perfect, then the querent has two good options, and the further details of the chart may provide useful guidance as to why, exactly, he stands to benefit from each. If neither perfects, then perhaps it’s time to look for a third alternative: neither staying in the current location, nor moving to the proposed site, but finding somewhere else to go.
This technique can be extended to many other cases where the querent is deciding between two (groups of) options. For example, in deciding whether to leave one’s current job for a new position, the current job is in X, while the potential new job is opposite this in IV.
The technique is limited, of course, in that it will not work for questions involving the VII house, since the opposite house is I, already taken by the querent. (A parallel limitation occurs in JMG’s version.)
We thus have two techniques for what I have taken to calling “conflict charts”: The method described in the first paragraph here (and by JMG) is used when the querent himself is a party to a conflict or competition, or is emotionally invested in a competitor. The method I present in the third paragraph is used when the querent is trying to decide between opposing options for himself; that is, when the two options are the “competitors” and the querent is the prize.
