The Early Sidereal Spirit

[Guest guest]

At 10:30 AM 2/8/04 -0000, Matthew wrote:

>Before you blow Gary Duncan's statement too far out of proportion, I

>think you need to understand the differences he was talking about.

>Bradley favored using Geocentric latitude; Duncan favored using

>Geographic latitude...

 

Matthew and List,

 

Looking thorough those early sidereal magazines from the 70s, it's obvious

that was a special time in the history of sidereal astrology. There was a

kind of joyous sense of discovery and community. As reflected in the

articles, everyone was open to trying different techniques. It was common

to read, " That didn't really work, so I tried this... "

 

The pros disagreed on various points, and as Gary Duncan said in his

article, the disagreement was always about issues and principles, and

didn't involve personal attacks on those who disagreed with you.

 

What seems to have happened between now and then is that the sidereal

system has become rather crystalized and more dogmatic. This invariably

happens with any system or organization. The attitude today is more " Well,

this works for me. This is what Fagan (or Bradley or Stahl...) said, wo I'm

not going to bother to look at anything else. " Needless to say, those early

pioneering fathers of sidereal astrology would be the first to decry

(strongly disapprove) of such an attitude.

 

A word on mathematics and statistics: Everything now is much more

sophisticated than it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s. This would hold for all

the scientific areas including statistical procedures. Chances are that

techniques and methods used in the 70s have developed greater

sophistication as well. With our computers we are now able to test the

anyanamsa or any other astrological factor in ways that weren't possible in

the 50s to 70s. For the zodiac this includes testing the micro charts such

as the novien and navamsa, midpoints, and various mathematical adjustments

to the ayanamsa.

 

When Cyril Fagan illustrated a technique such as the novien, he used only

one or two example horoscopes. We know now that we could easily look at

hundreds of similar charts to zero in on more precise factors.

 

So (as I've said before) we can't rely on research that is 30 or 40 years

old and unavailable for study for any one astrological principle or even

for an ayanamsa. In a way it's kind of exciting. We have to be the new

pioneers and explorers. We (or the future generation) will be the ones who

might be able to isolate a precise zodiac. It's also possible that this

precise zodiac may shift a little over the centuries due to the proper

motion of stars or the evolution of humanity. We can only work with what we

have today.

 

Sincerely,

Therese