Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Greetings, all. Here's a little exercise for all of you: Get your favorite astrology " cookbook " and pick a Sun Sign. _Any_ Sun Sign. Using your favorite word processor, type the first few paragraphs describing that Sun Sign's characteristics. When you're finished, use the " Find & Replace " function to change the Sun Sign's name to any of the following: 1) A race. 2) A gender. 3) A religion. 4) A sexual orientation. Now reread the description, and ask yourself if it strikes you as offensive, an overgeneralization, etc. And feel free to share your results here! Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Hiya Kevin, I see your point here, but what about speaking about people heavily influenced by certain planets, e.g. Pluto or Jupiter? Wouldn't that run into the same problem? Obviously not everybody with Jupiter on Midheaven will be quite the same. Still one CAN talk about general similarites ( Gauquelin proved that). BTW, are you implying sun constellations have no influence, or are merely unimportant compared to other data? I agree most descriptions tend to be unbearbly cutsey and simplified. >Greetings, all. > >Here's a little exercise for all of you: > >Get your favorite astrology " cookbook " and pick a Sun Sign. _Any_ Sun >Sign. > >Using your favorite word processor, type the first few paragraphs >describing >that Sun Sign's characteristics. > >When you're finished, use the " Find & Replace " function to change the Sun >Sign's name to any of the following: > >1) A race. > >2) A gender. > >3) A religion. > >4) A sexual orientation. > >Now reread the description, and ask yourself if it strikes you as >offensive, >an overgeneralization, etc. And feel free to share your results here! > >Later, >Kevin ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 Hello, everyone. In a message dated 00-08-03 04:59:18 EDT, you write: >BTW, are you implying sun constellations have no influence, or are merely >unimportant compared to other data? As my knowledge of aspects between planets and planetary aspects to midpoints grows (and, yes, there is and always will be a long way to go), I've found that the " sign " a planet -- luminaries included -- is in is the least important thing about that planet. A sign's best function appears to be helping you do some quick math in your head. (Example: Knowing a planet is at 15Leo00 tells you in opposes anything at 15Aqu00, squares15Tau00 and 15Sco00, trines 15Ari00 and 15Sag00, etc.) BTW, to that list of questions, add " People with a certain hair color " ;-). Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2000 Report Share Posted August 4, 2000 Hello, everyone. In a message dated 8/4/2000 9:10:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, barlea writes: >>As my knowledge of aspects between planets and planetary aspects to >>midpoints grows (and, yes, there is and always will be a long way to go), I've >>found that the " sign " a planet -- luminaries included -- is in is the least >>important thing about that planet. A sign's best function appears to be >>helping you do some quick math in your head. > >I agree, Kevin. After learning Cosmobiology and Uranian astrology (highly >recommended to all astrologers - try it and you will be " ruined for life " !) Ebertin is definitely on my list of people to credit for making astrology a true science. (The others are Addey, Fagan, and Gauquelin.) My only objection to Uranian astrology is the emphasis on imaginary planets. >So, it does not really matter if you use the tropical or sidereal >zodiac, because it's all about " relative positions " not " absolute >positions " That may be true for reading a natal chart, but transiting charts -- especially Solar and Lunar Returns -- are another story. The Sidereal Zodiac works best, IMO, because it takes precession into account automatically when doing transits. >>(Example: Knowing a planet is at 15Leo00 tells you in opposes >>anything at 15Aqu00, squares15Tau00 and 15Sco00, trines 15Ari00 >>and 15Sag00, etc.) > >planets on 15 degrees of fixed signs make a hard aspect to the >ARIES POINT AXIS, so they are considered as " sitting on the >ARIES AXIS " , Only in the Tropical Zodiac. Siderealists refer to this point as the Synetic Vernal Point, or SVP. At the moment, it's at Sidereal 05Pis15, give or take a minute or two. >Alas, this brings us back to the never ending argument between tropicalists >and siderealists. What ARIES POINT should we use ? the Tropical (solstice >and equinox) or zero degrees of sidereal ARIES (and sidereal cardinal >points). What's the meaning of that Aries Point in the sidereal zodiac, >anyway? What ayanamsa should be used ? Here's a real pain in the neck, isn't >it ? Noel Tyl's writings on the " Aries Point " would lead me to believe that we should use the SVP, not Sidereal 00Ari00. After all, like the Lunar Nodes, the SVP and its opposite, which the Tropicalists call " 00Lib00 " , are the points where a luminary's path crosses another circle. They may have some unique properties, but we should investigate with larger samples of people with reliable birth data and accurate biographies. >Nevertheless, there are still Uranian astrologers who use the >sidereal ARIES POINT and get good results, so who am I to judge? You're a fellow astrologer -- *that's* who you are! You have every right to ask someone on what basis they make their claim for " good results. " In other sciences, a person who claims to have successfully tested a hypothesis has to put forward objective proof. Also, a person's work is subject to the scrutiny of his or her fellows without anyone taking it personally. Why is astrology different? >Anyway, I hope you do not stone people here, just for mentioning >the tropical zodiac. It is not my intention to start another debate >over this issue. I wish more who calibrate the zodiac tropically would feel free to ask us " tough but fair " questions, and that those of us who don't would answer them to the best of our abilities. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2000 Report Share Posted August 4, 2000 Kevin wrote: > As my knowledge of aspects between planets and planetary aspects to midpoints > grows (and, yes, there is and always will be a long way to go), I've found > that the " sign " a planet -- luminaries included -- is in is the least > important thing about that planet. A sign's best function appears to be > helping you do some quick math in your head. I agree, Kevin. After learning Cosmobiology and Uranian astrology (highly recommended to all astrologers - try it and you will be " ruined for life " !) , and practicing it for a few years, I came to the conclusion that the important and unique information in the chart is really encoded in the very tight hard aspects (of harmonics that are powers of 2, i.e. resuting form dividing 360 degress by powers of 2: 2, 4, 8 ,16, 32, 64... and so on), the midpoint trees and the three part formulas that are similar to " arabic parts and lots " . Definitely not in the signs of the planets. So, it does not really matter if you use the tropical or sidereal zodiac, because it's all about " relative positions " not " absolute positions " ....well, of course, except for one very important point which brings us to your next sentence... You also wrote: >(Example: Knowing a planet is > at 15Leo00 tells you in opposes anything at 15Aqu00, squares15Tau00 and > 15Sco00, trines 15Ari00 and 15Sag00, etc.) planets on 15 degrees of fixed signs make a hard aspect to the ARIES POINT AXIS, so they are considered as " sitting on the ARIES AXIS " , which makes them very prominent : the connection of the native, event (or anything the chart represents) to the world and public at large. such a planet is a very important part of what the native represents in the public eye, or of the way the man in the street sees the native (or event or whatever). Alas, this brings us back to the never ending argument between tropicalists and siderealists. What ARIES POINT should we use ? the Tropical (solstice and equinox) or zero degrees of sidereal ARIES (and sidereal cardinal points). What's the meaning of that Aries Point in the sidereal zodiac, anyway? What ayanamsa should be used ? Here's a real pain in the neck, isn't it ? For example, let's take JonBennet Ramsey's natal chart. It has Pluto at 15 degrees of tropical Scorpio. Pluto on the ARIES POINT serves as a strong symbolism of this unfortunate little girl's " public image " (dragged to the basement- " underworld " , sexualy molested and murdered...remember the story of Pluto and Persephone ?). Actually, Mars is also less than a degree from 15 degrees of tropical Taurus (Aries Point again), which creates a violent Pluto/Mars opposition on the Aries axis... Nevertheless, there are still Uranian astrologers who use the sidereal ARIES POINT and get good results, so who am I to judge? Anyway, I hope you do not stone people here, just for mentioning the tropical zodiac. It is not my intention to start another debate over this issue. In the techniques I use, we perfer that third zodiac which is devoid of astrological signs... Best to all, Lea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 Hello, I've been reading your mail with much interest. I've studied Jyotish and sideral astrology for many years but I was afraid to start with these complicated midpoint trees used in Uranian astrology. As there exist actually a lot of good software could you indicate me where to start, what books to read ? After all I can always try and learn something. Many thanks Margarita - Uranian Astrobot <barlea Sunday, August 06, 2000 5:38 PM Re:Sun Sign SilliNess > Hello again , > > You wrote: > > Ebertin is definitely on my list of people to credit for making astrology > a > > true science. > > >From what I've heard, Ebertin actually borrowed most of his brilliant, > " original " ideas from Alfred Witte and his followers, the founders of the > Hamburg school of astrology (better known as " Uranian Astrology " ). He > actually took the ideas of midpoints and solar arc directions from " Uranian > Astrology " , dismissed the 8 hypothetical points (transneptunians) and the > three part formulas (sensitive points, resembling " arabic parts " ) and came > up with his famous COSMOBIOLOGY. Some claim he had a legal fight, in court > , against the people of the Hamburg school, over the question " who has the > copyrights for Witte's ideas and the 8 TNPs? " . He lost the fight and so had > to reinvent the system, his own way, while claiming that Alfred Witte and > his followers were wrong in many of their ideas. > > After learning, exploring and practicing both these astrological disciplines > for a few years, I can guarantee they both work well, but Uranian astrology > is much more accurate, and gives a much sharper and better picture, than > cosmobiology. But of course, I wouldn't be able to convince you of that, > until you put aside your prejudice, studied the two systems and practiced > them by yourself for awhile. > > > My only objection to Uranian astrology is the emphasis on imaginary > planets. > > Actually, the eight TransNeptunians are neither " imaginary " nor " planets " , > so they cannot be " imaginary plantes " . I'd rather call them " hypothetical > points " . Their perfectly circular orbit, and the fact that neither of them > has ever been sighted by Astronomers means they can't be planets. Imaginary > they are not, because their meanings, positions and orbits were derived > mathematically from the study of thousands of natal charts. > > Constellations and Signs, on the other hand, are indeed " imaginary " . Still, > all astrologers and non astrologers accept their validity without question > and they are being taken for granted. Where did the ancients see the Ram, > Bull, Twins, Crab, Lion, Virgin, Scales, Scorpion, Archer (Centaur?), > SeaGoat, Water Bearer and Fish? In their imagination, of course. The public, > consisting of people who know very little of what astrology really is, take > these signs (sun signs) as " all there is to astrology " . Siderealists and > Tropicalists differ as to the question of the boundaries and positions of > these imaginary constellations (signs), but not as to their validity. > > Pseudo-skeptics who wish to invalidate astrology altogether, just claim > times and again that astrologers disregard (or " are ignorant of " ) the > precession of the equinox, and so they are wrong calling a tropical > aquarian " aquarian " , when there's a great chance s/he is really a capricorn. > Even they don't dismiss the 12 imaginary constellations... > > All this debate over sidereal zodiac versus Tropical zodiac, and still, > nobody has objection to traditional astrology for " its emphasis on imaginary > constellations " ? Is that because we believe the ancients knew better? Did > they also know better when they thought earth was flat and positioned at the > center of the universe? > > My suggestion is, when we want to judge an astrological system for its > validity, we must judge it by its effectivity, by the way it works in > practice, not by the question : " for how many thousands of years has it been > practiced " . After all, we do not dismiss and invalidate modern technology > just because it is new, and works on " scientific principles " we still do not > fully understand. > > If we really wish to improve our Astrological techniques, we should put > aside our prejudice , and study, explore and test new techniques, by > ourselves, for what they are worth, and how they work in practice, before > having objections to parts of these systems that apparently seem " imaginary " > or " don't make sense " . My own experience is that " uranian astrology " works > much better, and is by far more accurate and effective than any other > astrological discipline I've practiced. I hope and believe it will indeed > become mainstream astrology of the 21st century. > Frankly, I do not understand why so many astrologers still insist on > practicing old fashioned astrological systems that prove to produce such > poor, obscure and incosistent results. > > > > > >So, it does not really matter if you use the tropical or sidereal > > >zodiac, because it's all about " relative positions " not " absolute > > >positions " > > > > That may be true for reading a natal chart, but transiting charts -- > > especially Solar and Lunar Returns -- are another story. The Sidereal > Zodiac > > works best, IMO, because it takes precession into account automatically > when > > doing transits. > > Still , many tropicalists (Anthony Louis, to name one?) wouldn't agree with > you on that. Some tropicalists even use both precessed and unprecessed > return charts, but with the tropical zodiac alone, claiming they both work > well. Siderealists use only the precessed return with the sidereal zodiac, > which is very different from reading the same precessed return chart with > the Tropical zodiac (different signs for the angles and planets, different > house rulerships, and so on...)...and both sides still claim they get good > results. How come? Do you disregrard the signs when reading return charts > and only consider the angular planets? That's no what I understood from > reading books about the analysis of return charts. > > I admit, I have very little experience with solar and lunar return charts. > >From my very little experience I can only say, they do not seem to work > consistently or to work every time. I happen to know quite a few more > reliable predictive techniques, but that's only my owm experience. > > Anyway, a uranian astrologer or cosmobiologist, when reading a return chart, > whether the precessed or unprecessed one (or better so, both, although the > precessed one does seem to work better), would definitely disregard the > constellations. S/he would, instead, read the midpoints and planetary > pictures on the Mc, Asc, Mc/Asc, Mc/sun, Sun, Moon, Mc/Moon, Aries Point and > other personal axii of the chart (preferably a high harmonic), to gain > valuable and much more detailed information. > > > > > Noel Tyl's writings on the " Aries Point " would lead me to believe that we > > should use the SVP, not Sidereal 00Ari00. After all, like the Lunar > Nodes, > > the SVP and its opposite, which the Tropicalists call " 00Lib00 " , are the > > points where a luminary's path crosses another circle. They may have some > > unique properties, but we should investigate with larger samples of people > > with reliable birth data and accurate biographies. > > OK ! > But then again, for what times do siderealists cast the solar ingress charts > (about every 3 months, a chart is cast for the time the Sun hits 0:00 > degrees of cardinal signs -aka " world axis " -, from which the astrologer > makes mundane predictions for the following 3 months)? Is it for the time > the Sun hits the Tropical 0:00 degrees of cardinal signs (SVP or " world > axis) or for the times it hits the sidereal cardinal points? From what I've > seen, Sidereal Uranian astrologers use the times of solar ingresses to > sidereal Capricorn, Aries, Cancer and Libra. Now, when we study the world > axis (SVP) in such charts, it is no longer the same axis where the Sun is > in the chart, so what makes it more valid ? > > Best wishes to all, > Lea > > > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2000 Report Share Posted August 6, 2000 Hello again , You wrote: > Ebertin is definitely on my list of people to credit for making astrology a > true science. From what I've heard, Ebertin actually borrowed most of his brilliant, " original " ideas from Alfred Witte and his followers, the founders of the Hamburg school of astrology (better known as " Uranian Astrology " ). He actually took the ideas of midpoints and solar arc directions from " Uranian Astrology " , dismissed the 8 hypothetical points (transneptunians) and the three part formulas (sensitive points, resembling " arabic parts " ) and came up with his famous COSMOBIOLOGY. Some claim he had a legal fight, in court , against the people of the Hamburg school, over the question " who has the copyrights for Witte's ideas and the 8 TNPs? " . He lost the fight and so had to reinvent the system, his own way, while claiming that Alfred Witte and his followers were wrong in many of their ideas. After learning, exploring and practicing both these astrological disciplines for a few years, I can guarantee they both work well, but Uranian astrology is much more accurate, and gives a much sharper and better picture, than cosmobiology. But of course, I wouldn't be able to convince you of that, until you put aside your prejudice, studied the two systems and practiced them by yourself for awhile. > My only objection to Uranian astrology is the emphasis on imaginary planets. Actually, the eight TransNeptunians are neither " imaginary " nor " planets " , so they cannot be " imaginary plantes " . I'd rather call them " hypothetical points " . Their perfectly circular orbit, and the fact that neither of them has ever been sighted by Astronomers means they can't be planets. Imaginary they are not, because their meanings, positions and orbits were derived mathematically from the study of thousands of natal charts. Constellations and Signs, on the other hand, are indeed " imaginary " . Still, all astrologers and non astrologers accept their validity without question and they are being taken for granted. Where did the ancients see the Ram, Bull, Twins, Crab, Lion, Virgin, Scales, Scorpion, Archer (Centaur?), SeaGoat, Water Bearer and Fish? In their imagination, of course. The public, consisting of people who know very little of what astrology really is, take these signs (sun signs) as " all there is to astrology " . Siderealists and Tropicalists differ as to the question of the boundaries and positions of these imaginary constellations (signs), but not as to their validity. Pseudo-skeptics who wish to invalidate astrology altogether, just claim times and again that astrologers disregard (or " are ignorant of " ) the precession of the equinox, and so they are wrong calling a tropical aquarian " aquarian " , when there's a great chance s/he is really a capricorn. Even they don't dismiss the 12 imaginary constellations... All this debate over sidereal zodiac versus Tropical zodiac, and still, nobody has objection to traditional astrology for " its emphasis on imaginary constellations " ? Is that because we believe the ancients knew better? Did they also know better when they thought earth was flat and positioned at the center of the universe? My suggestion is, when we want to judge an astrological system for its validity, we must judge it by its effectivity, by the way it works in practice, not by the question : " for how many thousands of years has it been practiced " . After all, we do not dismiss and invalidate modern technology just because it is new, and works on " scientific principles " we still do not fully understand. If we really wish to improve our Astrological techniques, we should put aside our prejudice , and study, explore and test new techniques, by ourselves, for what they are worth, and how they work in practice, before having objections to parts of these systems that apparently seem " imaginary " or " don't make sense " . My own experience is that " uranian astrology " works much better, and is by far more accurate and effective than any other astrological discipline I've practiced. I hope and believe it will indeed become mainstream astrology of the 21st century. Frankly, I do not understand why so many astrologers still insist on practicing old fashioned astrological systems that prove to produce such poor, obscure and incosistent results. > > >So, it does not really matter if you use the tropical or sidereal > >zodiac, because it's all about " relative positions " not " absolute > >positions " > > That may be true for reading a natal chart, but transiting charts -- > especially Solar and Lunar Returns -- are another story. The Sidereal Zodiac > works best, IMO, because it takes precession into account automatically when > doing transits. Still , many tropicalists (Anthony Louis, to name one?) wouldn't agree with you on that. Some tropicalists even use both precessed and unprecessed return charts, but with the tropical zodiac alone, claiming they both work well. Siderealists use only the precessed return with the sidereal zodiac, which is very different from reading the same precessed return chart with the Tropical zodiac (different signs for the angles and planets, different house rulerships, and so on...)...and both sides still claim they get good results. How come? Do you disregrard the signs when reading return charts and only consider the angular planets? That's no what I understood from reading books about the analysis of return charts. I admit, I have very little experience with solar and lunar return charts. From my very little experience I can only say, they do not seem to work consistently or to work every time. I happen to know quite a few more reliable predictive techniques, but that's only my owm experience. Anyway, a uranian astrologer or cosmobiologist, when reading a return chart, whether the precessed or unprecessed one (or better so, both, although the precessed one does seem to work better), would definitely disregard the constellations. S/he would, instead, read the midpoints and planetary pictures on the Mc, Asc, Mc/Asc, Mc/sun, Sun, Moon, Mc/Moon, Aries Point and other personal axii of the chart (preferably a high harmonic), to gain valuable and much more detailed information. > > Noel Tyl's writings on the " Aries Point " would lead me to believe that we > should use the SVP, not Sidereal 00Ari00. After all, like the Lunar Nodes, > the SVP and its opposite, which the Tropicalists call " 00Lib00 " , are the > points where a luminary's path crosses another circle. They may have some > unique properties, but we should investigate with larger samples of people > with reliable birth data and accurate biographies. OK ! But then again, for what times do siderealists cast the solar ingress charts (about every 3 months, a chart is cast for the time the Sun hits 0:00 degrees of cardinal signs -aka " world axis " -, from which the astrologer makes mundane predictions for the following 3 months)? Is it for the time the Sun hits the Tropical 0:00 degrees of cardinal signs (SVP or " world axis) or for the times it hits the sidereal cardinal points? From what I've seen, Sidereal Uranian astrologers use the times of solar ingresses to sidereal Capricorn, Aries, Cancer and Libra. Now, when we study the world axis (SVP) in such charts, it is no longer the same axis where the Sun is in the chart, so what makes it more valid ? Best wishes to all, Lea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2000 Report Share Posted August 8, 2000 In a message dated 8/6/2000 10:37:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, barlea writes: > Constellations and Signs, on the other hand, are indeed " imaginary " . Still, > all astrologers and non astrologers accept their validity without question > and they are being taken for granted. Where did the ancients see the Ram, > Bull, Twins, Crab, Lion, Virgin, Scales, Scorpion, Archer (Centaur?), > SeaGoat, Water Bearer and Fish? In their imagination, of course. The public, > consisting of people who know very little of what astrology really is, take > these signs (sun signs) as " all there is to astrology " . Siderealists and > Tropicalists differ as to the question of the boundaries and positions of > these imaginary constellations (signs), but not as to their validity. In _Astrological Origins_, Cyril Fagan gives a great explanation as to how the zodiacal constellations got their names. For example, back in the Age of Aries, Aquarius would rise just before the Nile began flooding. Hence the name, " The Water Bearer. " Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.