Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 I for one would be interested in any conclusions you have regarding twins. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 , alfonso osorio <alfonsoosorio> wrote: > > Dear List Members: > > It is very ironic, that a person like me, who claims to be a very critical student and practitioner of astrology, has to come here in its apparent defense . > > But I am really suprised by the nature of some assertions that had been done here lately, specially if they are done by people who apparently believe in or at least give the impression they know something about astrology. > > I was surprised to find the following interrogation: " what is the difference between mars at 29 " 55 of capricorn and mars at 00:01 acuarius " ? > > If I am not wrong this question was formulated by a person,Ed Kohout, who insists that only aspects between planets matter and that it is completely irrelevant the signs or houses they are placed on( an arguement shared by Starman?). > > So far I am surprised that nobody has been able to explain why it there should be a difference,and a significative one, IF (in capittal letters) astrology really works. Alfonso, I am surprised that you would place this caveat, " IF astrology really works, " on the question of a non-cardinal sign-cusp question. This, my friend, is a perfectionist fallacy of the highest order, and therefore fallacious and thus irrelevant. You are assuming that the genesis of astrology was based upon such illogic as simple sign placement over planetary interaction with other stellar bodies. Mars is Mars no matter where Mars is in the sky, and thus it should matter not whether it is in 29*59' Capricorn (which the siderealist would say is " exalted " ) and 00*01' Aquarius (which the siderealist would say is neutral). I hope you can see the silliness of this way of thinking, and I also hope that you realize the damage that has been done to astrology by such wooly thinking as signology. It's like saying that your automobile is worth more money on 35th Street than it is on 36th Street. > The first thing I should remind him is that astrology , by definition, is not uni-dimensional and consequently it is not based on a single factor. > > No body, apart from a quack or a very dumb person , could be able to say that just by the position of a single planet in a certain place, that he will be able to predict an event or even to make an assumption about a person. EK: But, yet, we have endless books that promulgate such trash as I have listed above, that Mars in Capricorn is somehow majickally different than Mars in any other sign! It is hooey, and the basis of most successful refutations of astrology. > It is a tricky question because all the different astrology schools I had studied, insist on the need of making a complete(yes, complete) chart for the most exact moment of birth and at the place where you were born. > > And almost all schools are based on the use of the planets and signs and houses. > > I understand there are some other esoterical schools, that line up more with voodo, and insist that signs and houses are irrelevant, EK: What?? This statement is silly. > but since I always try my feet do not lift from the ground, I had never studied them nor is my intention to waist one minute of my life reading about masonic, " the seven rays " of Bailey or other abstruse theories. > > One of the things that had always worried me is the incapacity of most astrological systems to explain why astrological twins, born just 5 minutes apart, can live so different lifes. And this is one of the reasons I quitted tropical astrology. EK: The reason is that any life does not depend on just one chart. Each twin will make different friends, eat differnt foods, sleep at different times, choose different lovers, etc etc etc, and it is this interaction with others, " synastry, " that accounts for the lives being different. Besides that, no one who does astrology would insist on such an absolute as you seem to require, and my advice to you is to re- evaluate your assumption that astrology is proof of absolute determinism in the cosmos; this kind of thinking was refuted in the Enlightenment. But it is not the main reason. Other day I will come back to this. > > It is completely silly to believe , as western astrologers do, that mankind can be divided in just 12 archetypes according to the month you are born in. No matter if you were born on july 23 or on august 22, they will put on you the label of " leonine " and will start reciting that repetive mantra of: you are fiery, proud, interested in status, you hunger for attention,blah-blah,etc. > > Hindu astrology works completely different. Even before the use of solar signs or at least parallel to it, as they were a lunar culture, they had subdivided the sky in nakshatras or lunar mansions. This is the approximate space traveled by the moon in a day,of 13 degrees and 20 seconds. So a planet is under the influence of the ruler of the sign but also it is colored its influence by the ruler of the nakshatra. > > This agrees with common sense. Because we should expect to find differences, as shown in real life,between those born on the different degrees of a sign. Or do you think all the leos are equal, as tropical do? EK: Trading what you claim is a valueless 12-sign system of divination for what you claim is a valued 27- or 28-sign system seems to be illogical on the surface. > > As it is logical to suppose, these nakshatras have different lords, and consequently planets are subject to also the influence of its lord. There are schools who even go further, subdividing the nakshatras into padas of just 3 degrees. > > As I said in a previous posting, one of the postulates of astrology is that the planets represent certain archetypes, but ONLY the signs and houses can show the difference in its quality and specially on the domain of life where they will allegedly act. > > To show some correspondence with human events, planets must show differences in the way they act, otherwise we would never be able to distinguish and to determine the differences in experiences persons have although born in the same hour of the day. EK: I do give the Earth's rotation a higher order of prominence in astrology, as do you, but here you seem to admit that it is only the combination of planets and points that makes for a valid study, which is what I was arguing in the first place. It may be that English is your second language, but it appears you have contradicted yourself. > Since real life does indicate there is a difference in life experiences, the model we choose must take in account the possibility of letting us to find the difference. > > If we disregard houses or signs, we will be condemned to make universal assumptions that will be completely spurious. EK: Simply false. One could do perfectly well with simple aspect and combination analysis, as do the Cosmobiologists. > For example, let`s consider the silly statement made by someone recently saying that " jupiter rising is a favorable element regardless of the sign and zodiac " ?? > > Can you believe and accept that? That is a ludicrous and preposterous statement. There are many criminals like Dennis Nielsen (exact conjunction with the ascendant), Vanzetty (member of the duo Sacco-Vanzetti), Desire Landru,etc,etc) who were born with that placement, apart from millions of drug-addicts, lepers,home-less, etc. EK: Such pithy arguments! I am not familiar with these folk-heroes that you cite, who may have perfectly awful natuses on the whole apart from the lucky JU-0-ASC, which every astrologer would deem a favorable energy. The " millions of drug-addicts, lepers, homeless, etc. " statement is simply unacceptable, as you have no proof of it whatsoever, nor could you ever have proof of it. Perhaps you misunderstood my context with the original statement. > By trying to eliminate houses and signs, they preconize worst systems of evaluating a chart! > > Ethimologically, house is associated with a place where you live and where you " reign " . Even in sanskrit, bhava, a synonym for house, means a " field of action " . > > If we have no way to link a planet to an specific action or an event, how can we will be able to find the area of action? EK: Well, you may live in a " house, " and I may live in a " house, " but planets are not living things and do not either " live " nor find housing!! This analogy is the reddest of herrings. > In regard to the strength of the planets,let me inform you that hindu astrology does not give full weight to the sign position of the planet. > > The influence of the planet is greatly disturbed or enhanced according to the planetary aspects it receives and specially by whom. The latter has never been considered in western astrology. EK: This assertion is FALSE. It ignores not only aspect analysis, but also the Hamburg school. I have come to think that you have no idea what you are talking about. > And what is more important, apart from the positional strength, for example, by occupying capricorn in the case of mars, it has to be analyzed the directional strenght(planets in angular houses), the natural and temporal srength and finally the motional strength. EK: Of all these, I would place positional strenth last. > The divisional charts have to be considered also because a planet strong in the natal chart but weak in the navamsa, will not bestow all the good results initially thought. EK: Harmonic analysis, the true genius and greatness of Hindu astrology, is admittedly much older than Cosmobiology. > I think that again Ed and Starman tried to gave the false impression that there are a lot of schools in India, just as it happens in the west. They even alluded to the allegedly many ayanamsas. Well, that is completely false. EK: OH??? The Nadi system is not a separate system? You are simply wrong. > The majority of hindu astrologers work with the lahiri ayanamsa and there are some few, including myself, that work with Krishnamurthy`s. But the difference is just of approximately 15 minutes, practically insignificant. > > And what is more important almost all give the same meanings to the planets and to the houses. So if you want to find a community of astrologers that share a basic creed , you already found it: the hindu astrologers. > > And please remember that Fagan is not hindu and his ayanamsa is used exclusively by the western siderealists. There is a difference in the division of the zodiac by the 2 schools and also in the meaning of some houses. EK: Well, can you blame him for not caring much about Hindu astrology, which was the Indian offspring of Greek astrology, and historically occurring much much later than the Babylonian system he was studying??? > But in general, I think there are more points of union than of disagreement, otherwise I would not had joined this list. This is not an indirect to anybody. > > I would firmly recommend to Kohout, who claims is a journalist and to Starman, to try to be better informed before adventuring in saying things about something they ignore completely, as is hindu astrology. EK: I have never said one word about Hindu astrology. Where did you invent this idea?? > And frankly, I do not matter at all if Kohout, Starman, or any other list-member, believes or not in astrology or in the sidereal zodiac. They have all the right to do it or not. And I will never quarrell with them or any other because of such untrascendental matters. > > But it is my firm recommendation to those who discard the sidereal zodiac, with all the flaws and limitations that astrology has, as I am the first to recognize, please do not degrade it more, by recommending the introduction of more bizarre and abstruse concepts,such as masonic astrology. EK: I assume here that you have no idea what " Masonic " astrology is, but you should take your own advice that you have given so freely in this post and not judge what you don't understand! > You should try first and work with the sidereal zodiac. And if you are not satisfied with it, then you should end your relationship with astrology. EK: This reccomendation is perhaps the worst part of this post. Let me tell you, Alfonso, that you have a long, long way to go in your studies, and to make such a ludicrous statement shows an arrogance that is fruitless. It is like saying to someone that if they can't play the guitar, they should quit playing music, even though they might be a great drummer. > Because, if astrology is not valid with the sidereal zodiac, then astrology is a complete illusive and illusory discipline and we all had lost our time studying it. EK: You are light years away from validiating such a perfectionist statement, Alfonso. No scholarly practitioner of astrology would agree with you. But, don't take my word for it. Make these same claims on AstroMundi and see how many people would bury this illogic. Best regards, Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 Alfonso, I appreciate the time and thought you put into your post, but if you only post once a week, whatever you write will fall by the wayside. This is a Discussion board, like being in a room carrying on a conversation. It doesn't work very well to drop a post in the mailbox and then disappear for a week. Sure, I use the lunar mansions and the navamsas, and they help a lot to tone the planets. I'll try to post a few examples here. Terese At 03:07 PM 1/13/03 -0800, you wrote: > >Dear List Members: > >It is very ironic, that a person like me, who claims to be a very critical student and practitioner of astrology, has to come here in its apparent defense . > >But I am really suprised by the nature of some assertions that had been done here lately, specially if they are done by people who apparently believe in or at least give the impression they know something about astrology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 Dear Terese: Undoubtedly my viewpoint about astrology lists is very different than yours. My experience has not been very fortunate because frankly,in my opinion, there are very few interesting postings, like yours by the way,which I always read with interest. In my case I participate in the lists just to share and to exchange some information or data but I never had thought of them as a way to improve my astrological knowledge. I had found many times that the lists end monopolized by some participants, just 2 or 3, who absorb practically all the space and time of the list, and what is more ironic, the topics they deal with are very far apart of the tematic for what the list was created. I had studied tropical, sidereal and hindu astrology, and all of them part of the basic assumption that a single planet must have differences in its meanings, otherwise the astrological model would be very simplistic and could not be used to interpret the great differences found in real life. Let me show you an example. I think you agree with me that there is a big difference between Bush and Gore. Astrologically, they even share the same ascendant, cancer sign, but look how different they behave. Here it is important to remark, that hindu astrology, never gives specific attention to the position of just a single planet. You will never find an hindu text-book that is dedicated to the presence of planets in different signs, as Liz Greene does. This demonstrates once more that there are some list-members, who like Kohout, in its urge to participate and to write daily to the list,even dares to confuse hindu with tropical astrology. Well going back, to my point, mars in Gore is more angular,because it is placed in the first house, but it is situated in the sign of cancer,so it is somehow more debilitated and not characterized by representing its most aggressive state. In Bush chart mars is placed in the second house, in leo,a sign ruled by the sun and that is considered as a fiery sign. If you continue, you will find that the sun in Gore is more soft also than Bush's because it is placed in piscis and it has no bad aspects of other planets. It is posited in the 9th house, a house associated more with intellectual and academic pursuits.It works so for Gore. What is remarkable in both charts, is that both suns form part or are involved with a gaja-kesari yoga of moon and jupiter, but better placed for Bush than for Gore. In Gore they occupy the 6th house, a place more associatted with health matters. Both have the ruler of the 7th in the first. The 7th rules the wife but has other very important meanings and it can be associated with politics. It is not my purpose to make an anlysis here but to show you that although hindu astrology is totally event-orientated, it is also possible to find more correspondence with the sidereal zodiac in the character delineation, in case you had opted for this branch. I think that the best way to test a method or a school is by comparing how it performs in real life. I had found many cases, where hindu astrology has excelled in anticipating mundane events and particularly in advancing startling predictions on natal charts, with just 5 planets and by using the meanings of the houses as given by the hindu sages. No western astrologer predicted the second world war nor its end and there are some hindu magazines that document predictions given by some hindus. I could give you a lot of examples were hindu astrologers had been able to see how their specific predictions had come true but I do not have time now. It is not my intention to engage in permanent debates, specially if they are silly or worthless. Common sense, the least common of the senses, indicates that there is fortune and missfortune in the world. Real life shows me that what is sweet for some, it is a poison to others. So the planets, which are the symbols used in astrology to represent actions, must have time and places where they must bring good things and others were their energy will act in a more nocive way. In case the model we choose lacks that feasibility, we are condemning to be locked up in a situation were we can not distinguish between 2 charts. Let me remind the novice in astrology, that practically all the persons born the same day, will have the same mid-points, with the exception of those related to the ascendant, and in some cases the difference will be minimal of less than one degree. How can you distinguish between them. Because instead of refining the way to show the differences they all end in the same basket. What is worst, there are planets that stay in a permanent angular relationship for months and even years. Pluto and Neptune had been in a sextile for many years so practically all the born during the last years will have the same midpoint of both planets,so what can be inferred by that for a specific case? And there are moments when for example two persons will have a same mars-sun midpoint, but it will never be the same if it falls in the 10th than in the 8th. In my case, I will end up with this sterile debate. It is completely true that for the first occasion I am not even remotely interested in finding about the origins or techniques of that weird thing that is masonic astrology. It is so ethereal and abstruse that there are not even books circulating and if there are,they are not for me. I have a lot of more interesting things to study and read. The last point I will try to remind you is that I had found hindu astrology as the better school or way to interpret and to decipher the terrestrial events, but this does not mean that it is perfect or that all can be read. As I had said astrology,including hindu, has many shortcomings and limitations and it has to be submitted to intensive tests in order to find its validity. In case some of you have some spare time, I decided to include some of Ed Kohout's responses to show how some people end inventing and attributing to the other things we had never said, in order to give pretext ot to facilitate further debates and responses. > >E.K: You are assuming that the genesis of astrology was based upon such > illogic as simple sign placement over planetary interaction with > other stellar bodies. > > I hope you can see the silliness of this way of thinking, and I also > hope that you realize the damage that has been done to astrology by > such wooly thinking as signology. It's like saying that your > automobile is worth more money on 35th Street than it is on 36th > Street. A.O: To compare planets on the houses with cars on the streets is as misleading as is if your doctor considers that it is the same to have a tumour in your head than in your stomach or in your lung. In your case I would not doubt were it could be! > > > The first thing I should remind him is that astrology , by > definition, is not uni-dimensional and consequently it is not based > on a single factor. > > > > EK: But, yet, we have endless books that promulgate such trash as I > have listed above, that Mars in Capricorn is somehow majickally > different than Mars in any other sign! A.O This is a sidereal list and here those books are not considered here nor commented.Som why do you refer to things that are not contemplated in this list? > > > > > > > >A.O One of the things that had always worried me is the incapacity of > most astrological systems to explain why astrological twins, born > just 5 minutes apart, can live so different lifes. > > EK: The reason is that any life does not depend on just one chart. A.O: ???/ What the hell does this mean? Who has said that a life depends on a chart? What we look in astrology is how the chart can symbolize a life, which is a completely different thing. > >E.K: Besides that, no one who does astrology would insist on such an > absolute as you seem to require, and my advice to you is to re- > evaluate your assumption that astrology is proof of absolute > determinism in the cosmos; this kind of thinking was refuted in the > Enlightenment. > A.O: Where did I said that I believe in the planets as causal factors or that I am totally deterministic? What I had said is that I had found more accuracy with the hindu MODEL and SYMBOLISM, than with the others, which is a completely different thing. > > > > > > This agrees with common sense. Because we should expect to find > differences, as shown in real life,between those born on the > different degrees of a sign. Or do you think all the leos are equal, > as tropical do? > > EK: Trading what you claim is a valueless 12-sign system of > divination for what you claim is a valued 27- or 28-sign system seems > to be illogical on the surface. A.O: You are dismissing hindu astrology without having the remote idea of what are its basis. > > > > > >A.O: For example, let`s consider the silly statement made by someone > recently saying that " jupiter rising is a favorable element > regardless of the sign and zodiac " ?? > > > > Can you believe and accept that? That is a ludicrous and > preposterous statement. There are many criminals like Dennis Nielsen > (exact conjunction with the ascendant), Vanzetty (member of the duo > Sacco-Vanzetti), Desire Landru,etc,etc) who were born with that > placement, apart from millions of drug-addicts, lepers,home-less, etc. > > EK: Such pithy arguments! I am not familiar with these folk- heroes > that you cite, who may have perfectly awful natuses on the whole > apart from the lucky JU-0-ASC, which every astrologer would deem a > favorable energy. A.O: I think the better arguements in astrological debates are said with charts. It is completely misleading to consider that because jupiter rises it must determine or produce a good event. Poor people who pay for those type of chart readings. > > > > > > In regard to the strength of the planets,let me inform you that > hindu astrology does not give full weight to the sign position of the > planet. > > > > The influence of the planet is greatly disturbed or enhanced > according to the planetary aspects it receives and specially by whom. > The latter has never been considered in western astrology. > > > EK: This assertion is FALSE. It ignores not only aspect analysis, > but also the Hamburg school. I have come to think that you have no > idea what you are talking about. A.O: Here I am referring to the concept of permanent and temporary friendship between planets, which is a hindu concept of evaluating aspects. It is you who have no idea of what I am talking about. Aspects are analyzed in a very different form than the ones you maybe once studied in tropical astrology. > >A.O: The divisional charts have to be considered also because a planet > strong in the natal chart but weak in the navamsa, will not bestow > all the good results initially thought. > > EK: Harmonic analysis, the true genius and greatness of Hindu > astrology, is admittedly much older than Cosmobiology. > A.O: If cosmobiology refers to the hamburg school it has less than a century. It is impossible to trace exactly when hindu astrology started because it first initiated by oral tradition. > > > > I think that again Ed and Starman tried to gave the false > impression that there are a lot of schools in India, just as it > happens in the west. They even alluded to the allegedly many > ayanamsas. Well, that is completely false. > > EK: OH??? The Nadi system is not a separate system? You are simply > wrong. > A.O: The nadi system is practiced by a minority and it differs because the charts are not casted, they already had been written before the person arrives. It is important here to remind you that India has more than one thousand of million of inhabitants, that represents almost 15% of the population of the world. I have no idea how many astrologers are there but there must a lot.And it is amazing to find that the majority adhere to the same concepts astrologically speaking. > EK: I have never said one word about Hindu astrology. Where did you > invent this idea?? A.O: Just lines above you discarded in an olimpic way the concepts of nakshatras and rulerships of houses,which are basic for interpreting a chart. EK: I assume here that you have no idea what " Masonic " astrology is, > but you should take your own advice that you have given so freely in > this post and not judge what you don't understand! A.O: This is remarkably truth and I had never thought there could be or exist a point were we could totally agree. You are even very generous, because you omit the word " remote idea or interest " which describes more neatly my total lack of desire of to know about it. The day this list becomes a window for airing those concepts I prefer to quit. I already know you don't accept or believe in the concept of house and what it represents as " a place where you feel more confortable " . Consequently, you are forgetting something you should not do. Let me remind you that this is " the house of a sidereal list " and the elementary norms of courtesy indicate that you should speak the same language of the persons you decided to visit. " C'est la petite difference " between my attitude and yours. You are visiting me at my place or home! Now you can see that the concept of house is not an esoterical but a practical one. Alfonso Osorio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , " alfonsoosorio <alfonsoosorio> " <alfonsoosorio> wrote: > Dear Terese: > Undoubtedly my viewpoint about astrology lists is very different than > yours. My experience has not been very fortunate because frankly,in > my opinion, there are very few interesting postings, like yours by > the way,which I always read with interest. > In my case I participate in the lists just to share and to exchange > some information or data but I never had thought of them as a way to > improve my astrological knowledge. How is it that exchanges of information cannot improve one's astrological knowledge? You say the darndest things, Alfonso! You yourself admit to not participating but only for once a month, which may explain why you are getting nothing from the experience. In life, s/he who cares wins. > I had found many times that the lists end monopolized by some > participants, just 2 or 3, who absorb practically all the space and > time of the list, and what is more ironic, the topics they deal with > are very far apart of the tematic for what the list was created. > I had studied tropical, sidereal and hindu astrology, and all of them > part of the basic assumption that a single planet must have > differences in its meanings, otherwise the astrological model would > be very simplistic and could not be used to interpret the great > differences found in real life. > Let me show you an example. I think you agree with me that there is a > big difference between Bush and Gore. > Astrologically, they even share the same ascendant, cancer sign, but > look how different they behave. > Here it is important to remark, that hindu astrology, never gives > specific attention to the position of just a single planet. You will > never find an hindu text-book that is dedicated to the presence of > planets in different signs, as Liz Greene does. > This demonstrates once more that there are some list-members, who > like Kohout, in its urge to participate and to write daily to the > list,even dares to confuse hindu with tropical astrology. This statements is utter nonsense. > Well going back, to my point, mars in Gore is more angular,because it > is placed in the first house, but it is situated in the sign of > cancer,so it is somehow more debilitated and not characterized by > representing its most aggressive state. > In Bush chart mars is placed in the second house, in leo,a sign ruled > by the sun and that is considered as a fiery sign. This is simplistic and wooly thinking. Al Gore had the aggressiveness to run for President of the USA, as did Bush. Do you realize the effort that requires of a person? How many sleepless nights, debates, speeches, travels, etc etc etc does this entail?? I don't see how you can say he is not an aggressive person! > If you continue, you will find that the sun in Gore is more soft also > than Bush's because it is placed in piscis and it has no bad aspects > of other planets. It is posited in the 9th house, a house associated > more with intellectual and academic pursuits.It works so for Gore. > What is remarkable in both charts, is that both suns form part or are > involved with a gaja-kesari yoga of moon and jupiter, but better > placed for Bush than for Gore. In Gore they occupy the 6th house, a > place more associatted with health matters. > Both have the ruler of the 7th in the first. The 7th rules the wife > but has other very important meanings and it can be associated with > politics. Such rulership schemes, which are similar in Western and Hindu, are a bunch of garbage, IMO. This opinion comes from experience in astrology, and having had the misfortune of learning the wrong stuff early on. There is so much garbage out there that passes for " the truth. " A discerning mind needs to investigate the claims of the so- called " masters. " > It is not my purpose to make an anlysis here but to show you that > although hindu astrology is totally event-orientated, it is also > possible to find more correspondence with the sidereal zodiac in the > character delineation, in case you had opted for this branch. But, in your last post, you stated that Hindu astrology rarely engages in sign delineation. Which is it, Alfonso? > I think that the best way to test a method or a school is by > comparing how it performs in real life. Well, define " real life. " Subjective terms like this are the slippery slope of slop. > I had found many cases, where hindu astrology has excelled in > anticipating mundane events and particularly in advancing startling > predictions on natal charts, with just 5 planets and by using the > meanings of the houses as given by the hindu sages. > No western astrologer predicted the second world war nor its end and > there are some hindu magazines that document predictions given by > some hindus. > I could give you a lot of examples were hindu astrologers had been > able to see how their specific predictions had come true but I do not > have time now. Oh, I think you had better back up such a phenomenal statement with some facts and citations!! To not do so is irresponsible. > It is not my intention to engage in permanent debates, specially if > they are silly or worthless. > Common sense, the least common of the senses, indicates that there is > fortune and missfortune in the world. > Real life shows me that what is sweet for some, it is a poison to > others. So the planets, which are the symbols used in astrology to > represent actions, must have time and places where they must bring > good things and others were their energy will act in a more nocive > way. > In case the model we choose lacks that feasibility, we are condemning > to be locked up in a situation were we can not distinguish between 2 > charts. > Let me remind the novice in astrology, that practically all the > persons born the same day, will have the same mid-points, with the > exception of those related to the ascendant, and in some cases the > difference will be minimal of less than one degree. How can you > distinguish between them. Let me remind you that those same persons the aspects and signs of those planets change even more slowly; in Hindu astrology, where aspects are by house, this change is slower. > Because instead of refining the way to show the differences they all > end in the same basket. > What is worst, there are planets that stay in a permanent angular > relationship for months and even years. Pluto and Neptune had been in > a sextile for many years so practically all the born during the last > years will have the same midpoint of both planets,so what can be > inferred by that for a specific case? The contacts of the other planets and points to this point. You must be saying that someone who has this midpoint on their MC has the same energy as someone with this point not on the MC, which can be a matter of minutes. > And there are moments when for example two persons will have a same > mars-sun midpoint, but it will never be the same if it falls in the > 10th than in the 8th. > In my case, I will end up with this sterile debate. It is obvious you have never studied midpoints or harmonic dials. > It is completely true that for the first occasion I am not even > remotely interested in finding about the origins or techniques of > that weird thing that is masonic astrology. It is so ethereal and > abstruse that there are not even books circulating and if there > are,they are not for me. I have a lot of more interesting things to > study and read. Well, Alfonso, so what? Most people would say the same thing about astrology in general, and that what you study is archane, silly, ethereal, abtruse, and a big waste of time that could be better spent on other things. > The last point I will try to remind you is that I had found hindu > astrology as the better school or way to interpret and to decipher > the terrestrial events, but this does not mean that it is perfect or > that all can be read. No, it only means that your opinion, uneducated as it is, is that Hindu astrology is superior. Big deal. > As I had said astrology,including hindu, has many shortcomings and > limitations and it has to be submitted to intensive tests in order to > find its validity. > In case some of you have some spare time, I decided to include some > of Ed Kohout's responses to show how some people end inventing and > attributing to the other things we had never said, in order to give > pretext ot to facilitate further debates and responses. > > > > >E.K: You are assuming that the genesis of astrology was based upon > such > > illogic as simple sign placement over planetary interaction with > > other stellar bodies. > > > > I hope you can see the silliness of this way of thinking, and I > also > > hope that you realize the damage that has been done to astrology by > > such wooly thinking as signology. It's like saying that your > > automobile is worth more money on 35th Street than it is on 36th > > Street. > > A.O: To compare planets on the houses with cars on the streets is as > misleading as is if your doctor considers that it is the same to > have a tumour in your head than in your stomach or in your lung. In > your case I would not doubt were it could be! Ahh, more ad-hominems, and from someone who claims to be above the fray. Your analogy of my analogy is faulty. One cannot have the same tumor on two different organs of the body. Different tumors appear on different organs. My analogy places the same car (a mobile object, much like a planet) on a different street. Your analogy places different tumors (that are not mobile) on differnt organs. Apples and oranges, Alfonso. Try again. > > > The first thing I should remind him is that astrology , by > > definition, is not uni-dimensional and consequently it is not based > > on a single factor. > > > > > > > > EK: But, yet, we have endless books that promulgate such trash as > I > > have listed above, that Mars in Capricorn is somehow majickally > > different than Mars in any other sign! > > > A.O This is a sidereal list and here those books are not considered > here nor commented.Som why do you refer to things that are not > contemplated in this list? Huh? I am limited to only the books you want to use?? How silly. > > >A.O One of the things that had always worried me is the incapacity > of > > most astrological systems to explain why astrological twins, born > > just 5 minutes apart, can live so different lifes. > > > > EK: The reason is that any life does not depend on just one chart. > > > A.O: ???/ What the hell does this mean? Who has said that a life > depends on a chart? What we look in astrology is how the chart can > symbolize a life, which is a completely different thing. You know exactly what I mean, Alfonso. Playing dumb is not your strong suit. " Symbolize a life " means what?? Your example of twins, which is often used by debunkers of astrology, is simply assuming things that cannot happen in actuality, and you failed to post my other comments on the matter that explain the statement above. Poor sportsmanship, Alfonso. > >E.K: Besides that, no one who does astrology would insist on such an > > absolute as you seem to require, and my advice to you is to re- > > evaluate your assumption that astrology is proof of absolute > > determinism in the cosmos; this kind of thinking was refuted in the > > Enlightenment. > > > A.O: Where did I said that I believe in the planets as causal factors > or that I am totally deterministic? What I had said is that I had > found more accuracy with the hindu MODEL and SYMBOLISM, than with the > others, which is a completely different thing. Thanks for making that clearer. I will hold you to it in the future. > > > This agrees with common sense. Because we should expect to find > > differences, as shown in real life,between those born on the > > different degrees of a sign. Or do you think all the leos are > equal, > > as tropical do? > > > > EK: Trading what you claim is a valueless 12-sign system of > > divination for what you claim is a valued 27- or 28-sign system > seems > > to be illogical on the surface. > > A.O: You are dismissing hindu astrology without having the remote > idea of what are its basis. This is untrue, as I have studied Hindo astrology for years, and probably know more than you. To say that I was " dismissing hindo astrology " with my statements above is to completely misinterpret the sentence; it is a red herring. > > >A.O: For example, let`s consider the silly statement made by > someone > > recently saying that " jupiter rising is a favorable element > > regardless of the sign and zodiac " ?? > > > > > > Can you believe and accept that? That is a ludicrous and > > preposterous statement. There are many criminals like Dennis > Nielsen > > (exact conjunction with the ascendant), Vanzetty (member of the duo > > Sacco-Vanzetti), Desire Landru,etc,etc) who were born with that > > placement, apart from millions of drug-addicts, lepers,home-less, > etc. > > > > EK: Such pithy arguments! I am not familiar with these folk- > heroes > > that you cite, who may have perfectly awful natuses on the whole > > apart from the lucky JU-0-ASC, which every astrologer would deem a > > favorable energy. > > A.O: I think the better arguements in astrological debates are said > with charts. It is completely misleading to consider that because > jupiter rises it must determine or produce a good event. > Poor people who pay for those type of chart readings. More nonsensical herrings of the red hue. I would suggest a refresher course on fallacies of argument. > > > In regard to the strength of the planets,let me inform you that > > hindu astrology does not give full weight to the sign position of > the > > planet. > > > > > > The influence of the planet is greatly disturbed or enhanced > > according to the planetary aspects it receives and specially by > whom. > > The latter has never been considered in western astrology. > > > > > > EK: This assertion is FALSE. It ignores not only aspect analysis, > > but also the Hamburg school. I have come to think that you have no > > idea what you are talking about. > > A.O: Here I am referring to the concept of permanent and temporary > friendship between planets, which is a hindu concept of evaluating > aspects. It is you who have no idea of what I am talking about. No, it is you who has not read Lilly or any Medieval author, or Hellenistic theory, which is the basis of the West. > Aspects are analyzed in a very different form than the ones you maybe > once studied in tropical astrology. This is true, but it surely in no way proves that the system is superior. > > >A.O: The divisional charts have to be considered also because a > planet > > strong in the natal chart but weak in the navamsa, will not bestow > > all the good results initially thought. > > > > EK: Harmonic analysis, the true genius and greatness of Hindu > > astrology, is admittedly much older than Cosmobiology. > > > > A.O: If cosmobiology refers to the hamburg school it has less than a > century. It is impossible to trace exactly when hindu astrology > started because it first initiated by oral tradition. Oh?? Read Gleadow, Chapter 10. Hindu astrology can be directly linked to Greek influences and is therefore younger than Western. > > > I think that again Ed and Starman tried to gave the false > > impression that there are a lot of schools in India, just as it > > happens in the west. They even alluded to the allegedly many > > ayanamsas. Well, that is completely false. > > > > EK: OH??? The Nadi system is not a separate system? You are > simply > > wrong. > > > A.O: The nadi system is practiced by a minority and it differs > because the charts are not casted, they already had been written > before the person arrives. So, it is a separate system! > It is important here to remind you that India has more than one > thousand of million of inhabitants, that represents almost 15% of the > population of the world. > I have no idea how many astrologers are there but there must a > lot.And it is amazing to find that the majority adhere to the same > concepts astrologically speaking. This could also mean that there is a high order of ignorace with the population. Chinese astrology is also homogenous and widespread, but this may not amaze you. I would also challenge you to seek out different astrologies that exist between the north of India (Delhi) and the souther regions. > > EK: I have never said one word about Hindu astrology. Where did > you > > invent this idea?? > > A.O: Just lines above you discarded in an olimpic way the concepts > of nakshatras and rulerships of houses,which are basic for > interpreting a chart. Ahh, more of my comments by you reposted in the wrong context to try and make me contradict myself. A poor tactic. > > EK: I assume here that you have no idea what " Masonic " astrology > is, > > but you should take your own advice that you have given so freely > in > > this post and not judge what you don't understand! > > > A.O: This is remarkably truth and I had never thought there could be > or exist a point were we could totally agree. > You are even very generous, because you omit the word " remote idea or > interest " which describes more neatly my total lack of desire of to > know about it. Well, I hope you continue to deny yourself of the benefits of learning about astrology from myself and others. This way you will stay ignorant and irrelevant, and provide less competition for true scholars. > The day this list becomes a window for airing those concepts I prefer > to quit. > I already know you don't accept or believe in the concept of house > and what it represents as " a place where you feel more confortable " . Well, sometimes I go outside of my house, maybe to the store, or the park, or a library. In your astrology, planets are always in one house or another, and never NOT in a house. Therefore I find the analogy to be rather wanting. > Consequently, you are forgetting something you should not do. > Let me remind you that this is " the house of a sidereal list " and > the elementary norms of courtesy indicate that you should speak the > same language of the persons you decided to visit. This is quite the moot statement! This list allowed me to join without such requirements. However, you think that I should have contacted Alfonso first before joining someone else's list!! > " C'est la petite difference " between my attitude and yours. You are > visiting me at my place or home! No, the Internet and this list are open to the general public regardless of what you may think. Perhaps you also favor Facism?? > Now you can see that the concept of house is > not an esoterical but a practical one. I see nothing of the kind, and you should reevaluate your translations of " house " from Hindu, Sanskrit, Latin, and the Germanic languages before making such poor analogies and presenting them as valid. - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 At 04:35 PM 1/14/03 -0000, alfonsoosorio wrote: > Dear Terese: >Undoubtedly my viewpoint about astrology lists is very different than >yours. My experience has not been very fortunate because frankly,in >my opinion, there are very few interesting postings, like yours by >the way,which I always read with interest... >I had found many times that the lists end monopolized by some >participants, just 2 or 3, who absorb practically all the space and >time of the list, and what is more ironic, the topics they deal with >are very far apart of the tematic for what the list was created. -------------end of quote------------------ You know, Alfonso, I think I've seen this on every list I've ever been on. It seems that there are only a handful of people who post, and the posts are often way off topic. >Let me show you an example. I think you agree with me that there is a >big difference between Bush and Gore... >Mars for Gore is more angular,because it >is placed in the first house, but it is situated in the sign of >cancer,so it is somehow more debilitated and not characterized by >representing its most aggressive state. It takes a great deal of courage and aggression to run for president and hold out to the end. The Mars of both Bush and Gore both have to be strong. Do you know how I believe that Gore's Mars works? First it's a benefic planet for the chart because Mars is the lord of the 5h and 10th signs. Well and Good. Gore got to be vice president for 8 years. But a political candidate has rarely suffered such a crushing and unfair defeat as Gore did in the last election. He won, but lost due to a huge moneyed political machine. You can bet that this will be viewed as the most traumatic and crushing event of his entire life. Mars in its fall in Cancer let the hammer fall. Absolute and total disaster. Somewhere I have this (Gore transits, return charts, etc.) all documented and worked out, but can't find the charts and articles. Ken Bowser wrote some very good articles on the election and the charts of the candidates, and he correctly predicted the final outcome of the election. I figure we're still in astrological kindergarten. Take the case of twins. Both Hindu astrology and ancient western astrology have traditions of very small areas rising having totally different meanings for the entire life. In Hindu astrology it's every 12 astrological minutes, five segments to each degree of the zodiac. There was supposed to be an old western book that detailed meanings for minute sections of the ecliptic/zodiac. But the book is lost to us. Many of the Project Hindsight translations have broken the zodiacal signs into smaller degree areas, each with specific meanings. Yes, I think we have a long way to go to even get out of kindergarten. The siderealists have the timing down pretty well, but there's a lot more to astrology than timing. Terese 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.