the Boyd chart - Ed

[Guest guest]

Hi Juan,

 

Patrice Guinard makes well the case you put forth, that astrology

needs not be beholden to other disciplines, and he goes further to

suggest that astrology needs to make up its own rules. His reasoning

(I'm being simplistic here) is that astrology is a unique science,

a " one off, " and in a class by itself.

 

I find it hard to dismante his logic, but he's smarter than me.

After all, it may be the case that the best way to

judge 'astrologically' the aggressions/defenses of the USA is with a

chart that preceeds in time the foundation of the entity known as the

USA. It may also be the case that some future chart, such as March

2, 2258, is the best chart. No man is bigger than astrology, and

possibilities are endless in a world where we are the music makers.

 

However, I think that the document upon which this chart is based is

not the moment of a declaration of a war. That had happened

earlier. This document is an offer for the cessation of hostilities,

with most of it dedicated to the justification of why arms had to be

taken up. This " olive branch " motif is supported, I feel, by the co-

rising of Luna and Spica on that date -- which symbolizes a desire

for peace and good relations -- and Venus conjunct Regulus, which is

a nod to the Monarchy.

 

The Full Moon chart for May 15 is more warlike, and Anti-monarchy,

with Mars rising as the luminaries are on the meridian.

 

As for the dismissal of nomological considerations, I don't see how

one can do so with a chart that is cast (apparently) for the signing

of a legal device. Comparisons to other documents of a similar

nature is good, and you make a good point there. However, we can

easily trace the intentions of the Continental Congress, and this

takes precedence over the comparison.

 

Have you by chance done the transits to the six times when the USA

Congress declared war, and when the Presidents signed those

resolutions? This would seem to be the best test.

 

Best regards,

Ed K

 

 

 

 

, " prec2nod <hylonome@r...> "

<hylonome@r...> wrote:

> <<No, it's part and parcel of the continuing lack of knowledge of

nomology by astrologers. This chart is for a document,

a " Declaration, " which is also an olive branch.>>

>

> I addressed these and other a-priory, non-astrological,

prejudiced " nomological " arguments that you and others use against

the Boyd chart in the compilation in my site. These arguments show in

my opinion a very limited and contrived understanding of Astrology.

>

> Powerful symbolic moments, acts or documents like the " Declaration

to take up arms " or like the moment of death of Lincoln will be so

only for those who are sensitive enough to see their symbolical

transcendence. Astrologers who depend on external nomological (read

non-astrological) legalities will not be able to recognize them.

>

> ... but that is just an opinion, like yours and others to the

contrary. We use different criteria of validity, a different logic

for the establishment of the astrological significance of a moment in

time.

>

> Juan