Guest guest Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 Frankly I have to confess I am perplex after reading the sort of things that are written in this list. When I d to this list I thought it was a place to analyze and discuss events under the optics of the sidereal chart. Well it seems I was wrong. I have to confess I was mislead because of the name of the list. Even identify this list as a forum for siderealist astrologers. Now I learn it is not for siderealist astrologers. Maybe I should look for masonic , because probably that can be the place where sidereal charts are discussed. We are living now in the weird world of Garp. It is quite obvious that Ed Kohout hasn`t take the time to study in depth the hindu astrology and not even the sidereal approach. The way he writes and his simplistic arguments shows his lack of knowledge of both systems. To study them require a long and painstaking intellectual journey. But to be intellectually honest, before you dare to dismiss something, you first have to study it. You can`t go there discarding concepts in an olympic way without knowing what the others are talking about. But unfortunately this is what happens oftenly.It is easier to do, to reject concepts than to study them. You don`t need to read or study anything, you just simply use a mouse and start writing and repeating the adverb no. It is so simplier to deny concepts. What I never suspected was that I was going to be a witness of a new astrological theory. Fortunately I was here and consequently I had been a witness of the launching of a new astrological theory! Ed Kohout has now invented a new astrology where there are no rulerships, where zodiac no matters, where all the persons who share an identical aspect function as robots and give the same automatic response when faced to a similar situation. My god. I am relieved of saying that I am not a professional astrologer. Ed would better apply for himself the rules once applied the famous humorist Groucho Marx: " I would never belong to a club where they accept me as a member " . Before I finish and take a long vacation on this list, let me emphasize this pearl : " To ignore real cardinal points is to deny real mathematics " . Can he or somebody else illustrate us as 1)what are the cardinal points 2)how they shed light on a chart and 3)what is its relation with mathematics? And by the way, what is real mathematics? I am an engineer and this is the first time I hear of real mathematics. Can he or somebody use a chart to show how they work? Where are the analysis and predictions made my him with the devices he mentions? Alfonso Osorio , " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...> wrote: > This is ridiculous. I'm sick of hearning " tropical lists, " as if no > one can use sidereal in those lists! That is not the case. There > are no " tropical lists. " There is a " sidereal list " because someone > wanted to make one. > > It is also absurd to boast that siderealists are more intellecutally > astute and curious than other astrologers, and therefore somehow of > greater value. That kind of reasoning is dangerous. > > Finally, *zodiacs* are measuring devices, and nothing more. The > tropical system uses real nodes, and sidereal corrects for > precession. Proving which one works better by use of outmoded and > disproven " rulership " schemes drives me bananas. Rulerships should > be cast out of astrology for good, first by burning, and then by > drowning, and then by burying alive, and then by suffocating, so that > all of the elements are given a fair shake! > > If Mars and Venus are square in your natal chart, they are square no > matter which damn zodiac you use. > > Also, to ignore real cardinal points is to deny real mathematics, and > real work done by real people who have shown them to be viable points > in astrology. > > To say that one must choose one zodiac over the other (and you did > too say that, Alfonso) is to present a false dilema, and false dilemas > are the bane of basic reasoning. > > Similarly, no one on this list should have to think in only sidereal > terms just because Alfonso thinks it's a good idea. Alfonso needs to > take care of Alfonso, and leave the rest of us be ourselves. > > Thanks, > Ed K > > > > , " alfonsoosorio " > <alfonsoosorio> wrote: > > > > > > I had said nth times that a person has the right to use the > tropical > > zodiac and to be more liberal, even to not believe that astrology > > works. I respect and accept that. In my family few persons believe > in > > it! And many friends that studied with me neither believe in > > astrology but anyway they are and will be my friends for the whole > > life. I also am not totally sure that it works. > > > > But going back to the posting,what I am saying is that there is a > > PLACE for doing that, which is the tropical lists. And sorry but in > > my case I don`t have any doubst of which zodiac is better so why > > should I continue reading all the same days the same blah-blah of > how > > the zodiac originated or if precession must apply?. > > > > And there is also a MOMENT for doing that. When? When you are just > > beginning to practice astrology, but once you had made your choice, > > you must move on. Otherwise you will stagnate. > > > > It is like finishing kindergarden and instead of advancing to first > > grade they continue teaching you the same. > > > > > > This is one of the main reasons why this list is so static and very > > little dynamic. Practically none charts are analyzed here and when > > they are mentioned, people refer to tropical and revaluated > concepts > > such as saying that if a person is tropical gemini changes opinions > > frequently, all the legacy of Liz Greene. > > > > > > I think there should be a minimum rule here , to accept and > analyze > > sidereal charts. Otherwise we will continue seeing the same with > the > > consequent decay of the list. > > > > > > Alfonso Osorio > > > > > > > > , Therese Hamilton > > <eastwest@s...> wrote: > > > Oh, Sorry, Alfonso. I see that you did say you were using > Placidus > > for the > > > Tropical chart. > > > > > > T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Alfonso, you have your paragraph spacing worked out. Looks good! At 03:23 PM 4/27/03 -0000, Alfonso wrote: > When I d to this list I thought it was a place to analyze >and discuss events under the optics of the sidereal chart. The fact that this isn't done isn't the fault of any one person. The sidereal oldtimers on this list don't discuss horoscopes because they hardly look at natal charts and don't like the Hindu approach. They mainly pay attention to sidereal timing methods such as solar return charts. > It is quite obvious that Ed Kohout hasn`t take the time to study in >depth the hindu astrology and not even the sidereal approach. Alfonso, as far as I know you and I (and Anny who has just d) are the only ones on this list who have studied Hindu astrology. If Ed or anyone else has even a tiny bit of interest in Hindu astrology, they should draw up Tony Blair's chart in both zodiacs and study the charts. (You posted Blair's BD in a post a day or so ago.) > Fortunately I was here and consequently I had been a witness of the >launching of a new astrological theory! This one has been launched several times before. I'm not sure many western sidereal astrologers even look at signs anymore. They see the angles in a chart and that's about it. But as the angles weren't quite enough and they didn't want to use something called houses (which they see as archaic), they now are using midpoints to fill in the spaces. > Before I finish and take a long vacation on this list, let me >emphasize this pearl : " To ignore real cardinal points is to deny real >mathematics " . > >Can he or somebody else illustrate us as 1)what are the cardinal >points 2)how they shed light on a chart and 3)what is its relation >with mathematics? I wouldn't mind a demonstration of this myself. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 How can you lay out a string of silly and useless ad-hominems on the one hand, and on the other hand claim that you are somehow above the frey of what you rail against? It's like being against gun ownership and then shooting someone. Well, at least it's good to know that I am now notorious and the bane of so many who might be intimidated. And, for the last ferking time: Masonic astrology is only in reference to the astrology used by that society. It is not intended to beget any other astrology, nor is it meant to be some " new " thing!! Why can't I simply find my little niche in the giant realm of " astrologie " and give my work to the world? In case you have missed it, I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the USA was created by Masons using astrological timing. This, to me, is a big deal, and a paradigm shift, as it flies in the face of " official " history. I guess everyone will not " get it. " To answer your other questions........ , " alfonsoosorio " <alfonsoosorio> wrote: > It is quite obvious that Ed Kohout hasn`t take the time to study in > depth the hindu astrology and not even the sidereal approach. This is a poor judgment on your part. I stopped doing Hindu stuff in the 90's out of boredom, and have forgotten more about it that you probably know. The way > he writes and his simplistic arguments shows his lack of knowledge of > both systems. To study them require a long and painstaking > intellectual journey. > > But to be intellectually honest, before you dare to dismiss > something, you first have to study it. You can`t go there discarding > concepts in an olympic way without knowing what the others are > talking about. > > > But unfortunately this is what happens oftenly.It is easier to do, > to reject concepts than to study them. You don`t need to read or > study anything, you just simply use a mouse and start writing and > repeating the adverb no. It is so simplier to deny concepts. You are simply throwing a girlie hissy fit here. Cite some specifics the next time you criticize me, or be prepared for the buzzsaw. > > > What I never suspected was that I was going to be a witness of a > new astrological theory. > > > Fortunately I was here and consequently I had been a witness of the > launching of a new astrological theory! > > > Ed Kohout has now invented a new astrology where there are no > rulerships, where zodiac no matters, where all the persons who share > an identical aspect function as robots and give the same automatic > response when faced to a similar situation. My god. I am relieved of > saying that I am not a professional astrologer. This is a bunch of crap, Alfonzoo. Oh, get this: ALL astology is an " invention, " and astrology existed for many centuries before any notion of a " zodiac " was INVENTED. It is you who has no idea about the historical saga of astrology, or what it even is!!! > Ed would better apply for himself the rules once applied the famous > humorist Groucho Marx: " I would never belong to a club where they > accept me as a member " . What's next, are you going to tell me that your dad can beat up my dad?? lol > Before I finish and take a long vacation on this list, let me > emphasize this pearl : " To ignore real cardinal points is to deny real > mathematics " . > > Can he or somebody else illustrate us as 1)what are the cardinal > points 2)how they shed light on a chart and 3)what is its relation > with mathematics? Ahh, so make fun of Ed, and then confess to not knowing how math and astrology are related?? You are a fool, plain and simple, and thanks to this post you have shown the world just how deep your knowledge hole is. 1) Cardinal points are defined as: a) points on the ecliptic of either maximum or zero declination. The ecliptic is the sun/earth plane, and as such, the sun/earth nodes are cardinal. b) due north, east, south, west, of the local space grid. 2) Progressions to cardinal points are indicative of major shifts in the life; midpoints and conjunctions to cardinal points show emphasis on native's ability to lead. 3) I have no idea how anyone can be an engineer and not have studied spherical trigonometry. I hold a BA in Journalism and know how to do this kind of math, so I expect you to as well. > > And by the way, what is real mathematics? I am an engineer and this > is the first time I hear of real mathematics. As opposed to " numerology " or other divinatory arts. > Can he or somebody use a chart to show how they work? Where are the > analysis and predictions made my him with the devices he mentions? I stored them away in a lock box, and placed it in the cornerstone of Enron Field in Houston, Texas, which will be opened in the year 2095. Warmly, Ed K 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.