Traditional Astrology/Sidereal Zodiac

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> Do you want to give a name to this British astrologer??

 

Charles Carter. He is virtually unknown by most modern astrologers

(not unlike Cyril Fagan perhaps) but he was well-regarded in his own time.

 

> And your Mercury is where(?) and the aspecting planets are...

 

It depends upon which zodiac, which house system, and which orbs of

aspect you wish to use! Over half of the planets in my chart change

houses depending on which house system is used to chart them. Not to

mention aspects considered by sign, by moiety, or by fixed values. I

would say that in the sidereal zodiac (by the Lahiri ayanamsa) that

Mercury is retrograde in Virgo in the fifth house conjunct the Sun

within three and a half degrees (also in the fifth house), in tight

sesquare to the ascendant in Taurus and Jupiter in Aquarius (in the

tenth house) which itself is square the ascendant to form a sesquare

'spike' formation. I use the 'Geburtsorthausersystem' (Koch houses)

which Dr. Theodore Landscheidt encouraged me to explore several years

ago, but in the Campanus system used by many western siderealists the

Sun and Mercury in my natus fall in the sixth house while Jupiter is

found in the eleventh house. I use an orb of fixed value between five

and six degrees for these aspects based on the 'terms' of the planets.

 

> Liber Hermetes, Part 2 (Project Hindshight): " From the first degree

to the

> fifth the degrees of [scorpio] are lucid. They make astrologers [and]

> astronomers, always having hope in God. "

 

Does Venus in the last degree of Libra conjunct a Scorpio descendant

qualify...?

 

> This is terrific!! For a long time I've been wishing that traditional

> astrologers would investigate the sidereal zodiac, because I've believed

> that this is where traditional techniques really work. Do **you** have a

> web site? If not, you're welcome to put articles and examples on my web

> site. I'd love to see some examples of your research. I'd like to be

able

> to refer traditional astrologers to a web site that used their

techniques

> with the sidereal zodiac. If you're not working on this, you

**must** do a

> book on this topic.

 

I do not have a web site and my research is purely anecdotal at this

point, that is -- it would not qualify as falsifiable, peer-reviewed

clinical research acceptable for publication in a scientific journal.

My research has been confined to a core group of a dozen individuals

whom I have known personally and provided astrological service to for

about the past fifteen years, subjecting their charts to all of the

available house systems, zodiacs, ayanamsas, aspect orbs, predictive

techniques (including primary and secondary directions, solar arcs,

transits, lunations, eclipses, returns, firdaria, chronocrators, and

other hair-splitting schemes) but in an entirely personal and highly

unorganized way. My particular interest lately has been in matching

some of the physical ailments reported by these individuals with the

indicators for illness given originally in Lilly and expanded upon by

Sepharial. I have noticed a much stronger correlation with sidereal

placements but, as I have said, this is purely anecdotal on my part.

 

Walter Old (a.k.a. Sepharial) was a crypto-siderealist. In his book

'The Manual of Astrology' he placed most emphasis on house placements

of the planets (as well as interaspects) but provided no 'character

readings' based on the signs. He wanted students to work these out on

their own. He also included some sidereal material in his book notably

in the section on 'Hindu Astrology (After Parashara)'. But of course

Sepharial was writing much later in time than was William Lilly.

 

Can people recognize themselves in terms of character and temperament

via the signs of the sidereal zodiac? Even considering the artefacts

of subjectivity and selective attention, I am convinced that they can.

I have had individuals describe themselves to me in terms which can

only apply to their sidereal sign placements. I know this is

controversial.

 

> I'm familiar with traditional techniques, have Lilly, Simonite, Lehman,

> others (not Coley), but haven't had time to really work with medieval

> techiques.

 

I do not use medieval techniques per se. I am for example less of a

Robert Zoller follower and more of a John (not David) Frawley follower

but even here I tend to follow the work of later writers who simplify

without jettisoning everything that belongs to traditional technique.

Otherwise one just ends up with a melange of techniques and opinions

none of which can be substantiated apart from the ipse dixit of their

supporters.

 

> O.K. the English transaltion of this?

 

Basically it means 'reach for the stars.'

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

At 11:43 PM 9/8/04 -0000, Andrew wrote:

 

>Charles Carter. He is virtually unknown by most modern astrologers

>(not unlike Cyril Fagan perhaps) but he was well-regarded in his own time.

 

Charles Carter?! I first studied astrology with the London Faculty of

Astrological Studies and have most of Carter's books. I always saw Carter

along with Alan Leo as the fathers of modern Tropical astrology.

Practically every Tropical book written today owes a debt to Charles

Carter...at least until Liz Greene and Jungian astrology caught the

attention of astrologers.

 

>It depends upon which zodiac, which house system, and which orbs of

>aspect you wish to use!

 

I meant this question to be very basic. Sign and major aspects. Mercury

conjunct the Sun in Virgo then. I've noted that the first lunar house of

Virgo (up to 10 degrees) seems to be linked to astrology. Are you in this

first decan/lunar house?

 

>Does Venus in the last degree of Libra conjunct a Scorpio descendant

>qualify...?

 

I'd say Venus probably has to be the ascendant lord.

 

>I do not have a web site and my research is purely anecdotal at this

>point, that is -- it would not qualify as falsifiable, peer-reviewed

>clinical research acceptable for publication in a scientific journal.

 

Well, the beauty of the web is that it's a good place for anecdotal

research. I see the web as mainly representing 'work in progress subject to

change.' We're all sitting around hashing out possibilities. So if you have

articles or chart examples you'd like astrologers to see, they're welcome

on Lost Zodiac.

 

>My research has been confined to a core group of a dozen individuals

>whom I have known personally and provided astrological service to for

>about the past fifteen years, subjecting their charts to all of the

>available house systems, zodiacs, ayanamsas, aspect orbs, predictive

>techniques (including primary and secondary directions, solar arcs,

>transits, lunations, eclipses, returns, firdaria, chronocrators, and

>other hair-splitting schemes) but in an entirely personal and highly

>unorganized way.

 

Now if you can pull a few key astrological signatures out of all this...

 

My particular interest lately has been in matching

>some of the physical ailments reported by these individuals with the

>indicators for illness given originally in Lilly and expanded upon by

>Sepharial. I have noticed a much stronger correlation with sidereal

>placements but, as I have said, this is purely anecdotal on my part.

 

That's O.K. I think astrologers would be interested in this anecdotal

medical analysis.

 

>Can people recognize themselves in terms of character and temperament

>via the signs of the sidereal zodiac?

 

Maybe and maybe not. I've been part of psychological studies where people

can't even match themsleves with their own results on professional

psychological tests.

 

>Even considering the artefacts

>of subjectivity and selective attention, I am convinced that they can.

>I have had individuals describe themselves to me in terms which can

>only apply to their sidereal sign placements. I know this is

>controversial.

 

Complex and controversial, yes. It can get very tangled. I like to stay

with more explicit signatures such as events and types of illness. This is

because each psychological trait has to be clearly defined. For psychology

I like Edgar Cayce's take on the planets. But if you have examples of how

people fit their sidereal signs, it would be interesting to see your

write-ups.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> Charles Carter?! I first studied astrology with the London Faculty of

> Astrological Studies and have most of Carter's books. I always saw

Carter

> along with Alan Leo as the fathers of modern Tropical astrology.

> Practically every Tropical book written today owes a debt to Charles

> Carter...at least until Liz Greene and Jungian astrology caught the

> attention of astrologers.

 

I am impressed! The Carter books are often available only in reprint

or from obscure theosophical publishers.

 

> I meant this question to be very basic. Sign and major aspects. Mercury

> conjunct the Sun in Virgo then. I've noted that the first lunar house of

> Virgo (up to 10 degrees) seems to be linked to astrology. Are you in

this

> first decan/lunar house?

 

Only in the tropical zodiac! <grin> But I do have a significant degree

in sidereal Virgo where the Sun and Mercury are -- I will have to look

it up though and get back to you.

 

> I'd say Venus probably has to be the ascendant lord.

 

Venus is the ascendant lord. How is this supposed to be significant?

 

> Well, the beauty of the web is that it's a good place for anecdotal

> research. I see the web as mainly representing 'work in progress

subject to

> change.' We're all sitting around hashing out possibilities. So if

you have

> articles or chart examples you'd like astrologers to see, they're

welcome

> on Lost Zodiac.

 

Thank you!

 

> Now if you can pull a few key astrological signatures out of all this...

 

Signatures are controversial among some astrologers who argue that the

whole idea of identifying signatures from large data sets is itself an

invalid use of technique. One of my first astrology teachers was a

very devoted student of the late Carl Payne Tobey who worked a lot

with data sets to find common patterns. She was really 'into'

signatures. But I do feel that one ought to be able to identify

specific ailments in the birth chart if one uses traditional techniques.

 

> Maybe and maybe not. I've been part of psychological studies where

people

> can't even match themsleves with their own results on professional

> psychological tests.

 

I have noticed from your web site that your professional background is

somewhat similar to mine. I have graduate degrees in religious studies

and educational psychology and have worked as a counsellor and

hospital chaplain. Part of my training involved learning to administer

various psychometric tools such as IQ and personality tests as well as

Myers Briggs type indicators etc. I think astrological interpretations

come from a very different perspective than standardized assessment tools.

 

> Complex and controversial, yes. It can get very tangled. I like to stay

> with more explicit signatures such as events and types of illness.

This is

> because each psychological trait has to be clearly defined. For

psychology

> I like Edgar Cayce's take on the planets. But if you have examples

of how

> people fit their sidereal signs, it would be interesting to see your

> write-ups.

 

Edgar Cayce was fascinating and according to the K. Paul Johnson book

about his life channelled material that was very similar in many ways

to that of Steiner (though much less elaborated). Cayce clearly seems

to have pointed to a sidereal zodiac although John Willner would not

agree with that. Have you found anything of psychological interest in

the Greene/Sasportas books? One of my friends went to England to study

with Liz Greene at her psycho-astrology centre there (I forget what it

is called). I think it is interesting stuff but rather mushy.

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

At 04:48 PM 9/9/04 -0000, Andrew wrote:

>

>I am impressed! The Carter books are often available only in reprint

>or from obscure theosophical publishers.

 

(smile) I have the original hardbacks, still with the dust jackets. I

treasure these older books. I use them for reference sometimes when writing

articles.

 

>Venus is the ascendant lord. How is this supposed to be significant?

 

The planet that's the ascendant lord is one of the personal/key planets in

the chart.

 

>Signatures are controversial among some astrologers who argue that the

>whole idea of identifying signatures from large data sets is itself an

>invalid use of technique.

 

I meant if you can use only a few techniques to illustrate a point rather

than the whole lot. Large data sets aren't necessary.

 

But I do feel that one ought to be able to identify

>specific ailments in the birth chart if one uses traditional techniques.

 

Yes, this is the type of thing I'd like to see on the internet.

 

>I have noticed from your web site that your professional background is

>somewhat similar to mine. I have graduate degrees in religious studies

>and educational psychology and have worked as a counsellor and

>hospital chaplain. Part of my training involved learning to administer

>various psychometric tools such as IQ and personality tests as well as

>Myers Briggs type indicators etc. I think astrological interpretations

>come from a very different perspective than standardized assessment tools.

 

Yes, and they should. For me the planets are the key to psychology. I

expect you have much more experience in the entire psychological area than

I do. I looked around years ago and thought to myself, " These professionals

are more messed up than their patients. " I found astrology much more

refreshing.

 

You have the perfect background for work/commentary on astrological

profiles of individuals. I'd really like to see a few of these tied to

horoscopes of people you know.

 

>Edgar Cayce was fascinating and according to the K. Paul Johnson book

>about his life channelled material that was very similar in many ways

>to that of Steiner (though much less elaborated). Cayce clearly seems

>to have pointed to a sidereal zodiac...

 

Yes, with his " 30 degree off " comments! I've drafted an article or two on

Cayce and the zodiac. Sent them to the ARE but no one ever replied.

 

> although John Willner would not agree with that.

 

John Willner has his own ideas. I was quite disappointed in his book.

 

>Have you found anything of psychological interest in the Greene/Sasportas

books?

 

I don't read Greene anymore as I've been working with event astrology for

some time now. I don't know abaout Sasportas.

 

One of my friends went to England to study

>with Liz Greene at her psycho-astrology centre there (I forget what it

>is called). I think it is interesting stuff but rather mushy.

 

Mushy, yes. Not for me anymore. I get extremely tired of

astro-psychological spin linked to academic psych concepts. I know Jung is

different, but astrologers can go too far in that direction. Then they miss

the entire point of the horoscope. For psychology I like Edgar Cayce's

approach. There were two books published at one time by Cayce's org, really

nice hardbacks full of astrological quotes. These are the books I like to

read. Also all the readings are on the internet now for members. (I'm not a

member anymore.)

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> The planet that's the ascendant lord is one of the personal/key

planets in

> the chart.

 

I know -- I learned this over twenty years ago. But I asked how it was

significant in relation to the degrees of Scorpio which you stated

were significant for astrologers. I have Venus (ascendant lord) in the

last degree of Libra within a six degree conjunction of my descendant

which is in Scorpio.

 

> I meant if you can use only a few techniques to illustrate a point

rather

> than the whole lot. Large data sets aren't necessary.

 

Agreed. Thus it was with Freud and Piaget!

 

> Yes, and they should. For me the planets are the key to psychology. I

> expect you have much more experience in the entire psychological

area than

> I do. I looked around years ago and thought to myself, " These

professionals

> are more messed up than their patients. " I found astrology much more

> refreshing.

 

Absolutely! But this runs counter to the currently accepted parameters

of consensual reality.

 

> You have the perfect background for work/commentary on astrological

> profiles of individuals. I'd really like to see a few of these tied to

> horoscopes of people you know.

 

It will take me some time but I will write something up for your site.

 

> Yes, with his " 30 degree off " comments! I've drafted an article or

two on

> Cayce and the zodiac. Sent them to the ARE but no one ever replied.

 

Really? Strange. I would have thought they'd be pleased to receive any

kind of original research at all in this area.

 

> Mushy, yes. Not for me anymore. I get extremely tired of

> astro-psychological spin linked to academic psych concepts. I know

Jung is

> different, but astrologers can go too far in that direction. Then

they miss

> the entire point of the horoscope. For psychology I like Edgar Cayce's

> approach. There were two books published at one time by Cayce's org,

really

> nice hardbacks full of astrological quotes. These are the books I

like to

> read.

 

As I recall (I don't have the book any longer) Arroyo included some

excerpts from Cayce in one of his books. I like the Arroyo book better

than the Greene/Sasportas ones.

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

At 06:28 PM 9/9/04 -0000, Andrew wrote:

 

>> [TH] The planet that's the ascendant lord is one of the personal/key

>planets in the chart.

>

>I know -- I learned this over twenty years ago.

 

I worded that poorly. Of course that's almost lesson number one for every

astrologer. I was going to add an explanatory note but was in a hurry. I'm

sorry if I made it sound like you were a novice, which you certainly

aren't! My Mercury skips along unthinkingly sometimes. As everyone in my

family will tell you.

 

>But I asked how it was

>significant in relation to the degrees of Scorpio which you stated

>were significant for astrologers. I have Venus (ascendant lord) in the

>last degree of Libra within a six degree conjunction of my descendant

>which is in Scorpio.

 

So you must have around 6 Taurus rising? Far enough away not to be

afflicted by Algol which really does a number on my Uranus. I have to stay

worlds away from anything psychic.

 

All I know is that the quote was from Liber Hermetis. That chapter in LH is

a real hodgepodge from many sources. But the last lunar mansion of Libra

runs into Scorpio to 3 degrees 20 minutes, so there would be a connection I

would think.

 

But then the stars of Libra don't run much futher than a couple of degrees

into Scorpio, so if there's an influence in the first 5 degrees, it's not

from the stars.

 

>>It will take me some time but I will write something up for your site.

 

I'm pleased, and hope your contribution will happen faster than my sign

contributions are happening.!

 

>Really? Strange. I would have thought they'd be pleased to receive any

>kind of original research at all in this area.

 

I think the moving forces in ARE are traditional oldsters who know very

little about astrology. They're into health topics and having various

psychics speak at their conferences. And the last I heard they were still

doing the touchy-feeling group techniques of the 60s at their gatherings.

 

>As I recall (I don't have the book any longer) Arroyo included some

>excerpts from Cayce in one of his books. I like the Arroyo book better

>than the Greene/Sasportas ones.

 

I have a couple of Arroyo's books but haven't used them in awhile. I used

him as a reference when I wrote my material on the 'elements'

(triplicities). Sasportas must be after my time, which was mainly in the

70s (Tropically speaking).

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> So you must have around 6 Taurus rising? Far enough away not to be

> afflicted by Algol which really does a number on my Uranus. I have

to stay

> worlds away from anything psychic.

 

Alcyone (eta Tau) is on my ascendant in Taurus 6.01 with Albireo (bet

Cyg), Altair (al Aql), Giedi (al Cap), Dabih (bet Cap) and Oculus (pi

Cap) on my midheaven in Capricorn 9.27. My Sun in Virgo 17.56 is

afflicted by Vindemiatrix (eps Vir), Porrima (gam Vir), and Algorab

(del Cor) while my Moon in Scorpio 26.14 has Sabik (eta Oph) and

Spiculum (M8-20-21 Sag). I think that is all I want to share about

these stars for now....

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

Arthur....

 

tis the season....

 

looking at your ASC, MC, Sun and Moon I could only smile.... since my

calculations are Fagan-Stahl-Bradley based ayanamsa... I figured you might smile

as well....

My Rahu is @ 8 Taurus, Mercury @ 17 Gemini, Sun @ 24 Taurus, Uranus @ 27 Taurus

and MC @ 6-7 Cancer......

 

Squares, Oppositions and Conjunctions create stimuli....

 

Jivio

 

 

kyuseiki <kyuseiki wrote:

, Therese Hamilton

wrote:

 

> So you must have around 6 Taurus rising? Far enough away not to be

> afflicted by Algol which really does a number on my Uranus. I have

to stay

> worlds away from anything psychic.

 

Alcyone (eta Tau) is on my ascendant in Taurus 6.01 with Albireo (bet

Cyg), Altair (al Aql), Giedi (al Cap), Dabih (bet Cap) and Oculus (pi

Cap) on my midheaven in Capricorn 9.27. My Sun in Virgo 17.56 is

afflicted by Vindemiatrix (eps Vir), Porrima (gam Vir), and Algorab

(del Cor) while my Moon in Scorpio 26.14 has Sabik (eta Oph) and

Spiculum (M8-20-21 Sag). I think that is all I want to share about

these stars for now....

 

Andrew

 

 

 

 

 

 

" 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:

/