On Planetary Condition relative to the Horizon
© 2010, Apr 8 Curtis Manwaring
This is a situation where it helps to understand the anthropomorphic paradigms that Schmidt uses. The ancients had astronomical tables also, so they would have looked up these positions and Valens says to be careful about being as accurate as possible in doing so. Back in the early days of Project Hindsight we used to think that sect was a 3-fold principle where a planet could have a partial sect status (masculine feminine sign, above below horizon and in sect or out of sect) but we now believe that this is wrong. Planets are either of the sect or contrary to the sect that is in political power and this is because there are two sides struggling to set the agenda for the native and the only planet that switches political affiliation is Mercury depending upon his relation to the Sun.
What Schmidt says is that the planets are either of the sect or not (that is in power or not in power) and that the conditions of being above or below the horizon and being in a masculine and feminine sign are rejoicing conditions. If the sect is diurnal, a nocturnal planet might not be in power, but if it is below the horizon, it at least is not in the enemy camp where it may be subjected to maltreatment, etc and may be surrounded by sect mates. Nocturnal planets want to be in the hemisphere opposite the one the Sun occupies and in feminine signs and contrarily with the planets of the diurnal sect. Since planets are said to be in the service of heimarmene, he says that the planets consult the signs (the temples where the planets go to consult) to find out what should ideally be the fate of the native in a particular topos (house). Since the signs are houses, the image (sign) is responsible for setting this ideal (this is where whole sign houses are used). There is a whole section here on how Schmidt deals with the Antiochus aspect doctrine that could be addressed here but I don't want to be too long on this...
That doesn't mean that what happens up there is necessarily going to come to pass, it is just an ideal or potentiality, so you have the allotments (arabic parts) to show how these "fall to earth". So when it comes to questions that exist on a zodiacal level and planets interactions on the zodiacal level regarding heimarmene, then in zodiaco is more philosophically consistent, because the horizon doesn't exist at that level of the planet's interaction, as the earth is removed from consideration, but insofar as the question comes to the level of lots / parts then the rejoicing conditions of being above or below the horizon (observed) should come into play. That is why there are 3 frames of reference in the Preliminary Natal Analysis (Zodiacal, planetary and terrestrial) and each has their own set of coordinates to be used not to be confused mixed with each other. In the example above you are mixing horizontal coordinates with zodiacal coordinates.
Since Mars is of the sect in this chart, and the Sun is not in power, you can think of this Mars as getting ready to join in battle with the diurnal sect below the horizon and it would have it's joy in the 6th anyway in doing so.
BTW, this also might be a way to differentiate philosophically between coordinates in "zodiaco" or in "mundo" as referring to which level of fate you are dealing with (hemiarmene / tuche, etc) when dealing with primary directions. If something has it's decree from the realm of heimarmene, then the zodiac should be used, but if directions from the lots are used, then in mundo might be more appropriate. Schmidt frequently distinguishes the meanings of such things saying that you have to know what you are looking at first and what it represents before you can derive the meaning.