Guest guest Posted January 10, 2005 Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 Juan Oliver wrote: > Greg... > Thanks for sharing your views and giving us a glimmer of your belief system... Hi Juan, You're very welcome. > ... your sense of sidereal baffles me... We develop our predictive talents in order to establish the Saturn paradigm essential for developing the knowledge of parameters.... Predictive work has great value. I use it a lot in my own work. But there are many ways to develop the Saturn function without having to resort to predicting the future. Why do you feel that knowing what outer events will happen next week or next month is necessary to your development? Saturn is our ability to set boundaries and define things in order to give them structure. I think I've been able to establish by own Saturn paradigm through use of the tropical chart. Can you explain exactly how the tropical chart is lacking in being able to establish a knowledge of parameters? > The Neptune paradigm is essential as well however.... keeping fish within my home requires a tank to hold water.... Could you say more about your example of the fish tank? I'm guessing: Are you implying that the Neptune paradigm is impractical and that a sidereal perspective will lead you to do the correct thing to keep your fish safe in your home? > As a siderealist, my path has found that prognostication defines where and how the playing field for spirituality and the metaphysical world exhibits itself... Okay, that sounds like a very good path. Whatever way we can integrate a spiritual perspective into our work is a good thing. But I'm curious -- why the special emphasis on the future rather than on the present? My sense of prognostication is that it puts a lot of energy into anticipating what life is *going* to offer sometime other than now. That seems to take something away from being present to life as it is happening. If we're being true to ourselves and living good and effective lives, won't future events take care of themselves? Again, I have nothing against prediction. My point was that for me it is less necessary than living a good life that integrates my inner and outer worlds. > The tropical argument demonstrates flaws which become rational within the sidereal paradigm..... Ah, can you please illustrate this with an example? I think it's possible we may be working with different definitions if what the word " rational " means. I would say that the tropical view is, perhaps, more subjective and experiential, while the sidereal presents the world more as the given reality that we need to deal with. Perhaps we could say tropical encourages more free will in some respects while with sidereal, things are more determined. But I see advantages and disadvantages to both viewpoints. The idea that siderealists are practical people and tropicalists are therefore not, which is an impression I've been getting on this list, is a bit simplistic. I have a different way of explaining the flaws in the tropical, but I can't go into that now (don't want to let these messages get too long). > Yes I'm a soul that has a body... however ... At any given time our perceptions straddle the edge of value... I don't follow what you're trying to say here. Our perceptions arise within the mind/body complex. Regardless of how you see or value things, if you're a soul that has a body, your true nature will still always be soul. We are not just the natal chart. The natal chart is our inborn fixed personality. The transiting planets are also present within our consciousness, and so must be part who we are. In a way, the motion of the planets represent a more true and fluid expression of our identity in this very moment. Our nature is continuously changing and is not limited to just the natal chart pattern. Therefore, the transiting planets, as they relate to our natal characteristics, can be said to represent that part of us that is always alive and vital. In my view of things, the outer motion of the planets symbolizes inner soul motion. > You are developing a philosophical doctrine.... we hope to expand on your efforts by educating you to the sidereal paradigm... This is why you are here.... Yes. If we can stay focused on the sidereal question, then this discussion will continue to be a relevant topic to this group. Nice discussion. Thank you. -Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 Greg , " mr_greg_kramer " <grkramer@t...> wrote: > > Predictive work has great value. I use it a lot in my own work. But > there are many ways to develop the Saturn function without having to > resort to predicting the future. Why do you feel that knowing what > outer events will happen next week or next month is necessary to your > development? > For Definition... simply for definition... Predictive work defines the properties which we work with... Predictive work is the only genuine way factual analysis occurs... How else can one define relationships among the elements unless we can anticipate their actions? We look at result(past events) to understand what has occurred... If we have truly learned than predicting is application of what is learned which defines knowledge. Simply another cycle... > Saturn is our ability to set boundaries and define things in order to > give them structure. I think I've been able to establish by own > Saturn paradigm through use of the tropical chart. Can you explain > exactly how the tropical chart is lacking in being able to establish a > knowledge of parameters? It fails to predict... Tropical does provide a wellspring of information associated with signage and has been the zodiac that most astrologers have learned.... In itself, it is an important study of a seasonal cycle. Tropical however is changing because of its faliure to predict. Many of your leading tropicalists today allow for precession simply because tropical relevance is limited. > > The Neptune paradigm is essential as well however.... keeping fish > within my home requires a tank to hold water.... > > Could you say more about your example of the fish tank? I'm guessing: > Are you implying that the Neptune paradigm is impractical and that a > sidereal perspective will lead you to do the correct thing to keep > your fish safe in your home? > The constant trouble with words are their ability to be understood so many different ways.... When we cipher metaphysics we do so with a logical understanding... Here, Saturn is the tank and Neptune the water within the tank... The " predictive work " is definitive... When a correct prediction occurs definition of the properties involved are understood as knowledge(Saturn). That knowledge can provide the arena (tank) for metaphysics(Neptune) to engage, to be logically appreciated... > > As a siderealist, my path has found that prognostication defines > where and how the playing field for spirituality and the metaphysical > world exhibits itself... > > Okay, that sounds like a very good path. Whatever way we can > integrate a spiritual perspective into our work is a good thing. But > I'm curious -- why the special emphasis on the future rather than on > the present? We work with the past and the future to appreciate and understand the present... Its a " gift " ... Thats why its called " present " . I live in the present... I simply take the additional step of proofing my understanding by application to achieve knowledge. My sense of prognostication is that it puts a lot of > energy into anticipating what life is *going* to offer sometime other > than now. That seems to take something away from being present to > life as it is happening. If we're being true to ourselves and living > good and effective lives, won't future events take care of themselves? > We anticipate the weather so that we may enjoy the Sun at the beach or the snow for a skiing weekend... Why not anticipate a tsunami or an earthquake to avoid death and destruction... Why not be prepared for that time in our lives when transiting uranus is in opposition to our natal uranus?... Why not be more than we are today? The only way to test your work is to apply your work... > Again, I have nothing against prediction. My point was that for me it > is less necessary than living a good life that integrates my inner and > outer worlds. Its all about intention... I enjoy how prediction can be integral. As for the " sensitive " within me... my intuition requires no math. > > > The tropical argument demonstrates flaws which become rational > within the sidereal paradigm..... > > Ah, can you please illustrate this with an example? Again... the predictive theme is repeated... The tropical does not predict(flaws) where the sidereal does(rational). I think it's > possible we may be working with different definitions if what the word > " rational " means. I would say that the tropical view is, perhaps, > more subjective and experiential, while the sidereal presents the > world more as the given reality that we need to deal with. Perhaps we > could say tropical encourages more free will in some respects while > with sidereal, things are more determined. But I see advantages and > disadvantages to both viewpoints. > The seperation of the two is unnecessary... As a siderealist my intention is not to diminish the integrity of tropical. It is to embrace it within an astrological consciousness which is both sidereal and tropical... Why you hear so much sidereal here is because we are conscious of its value... Much of what I understand astrological comes from tropicalists though my perspective is primarily sidereal. Siderealists such as Blackwell, Fagan and Bradley teach(taught) how to " chart " . > The idea that siderealists are practical people and tropicalists are > therefore not, which is an impression I've been getting on this list, > is a bit simplistic. > We are not a simple lot... We are bringing our knowledge together in ways to weave a stronger fabric... Many times misunderstandings occur simply because the wrong letter was typed in.... We need definition to explain differences however know that your knowledge is embraced whether one agrees with it or not... Maybe we siderealists are more practical.... but whose to judge? > I have a different way of explaining the flaws in the tropical, but I > can't go into that now (don't want to let these messages get too long). > > > Yes I'm a soul that has a body... however ... At any given time our > perceptions straddle the edge of value... > > I don't follow what you're trying to say here. Our perceptions arise > within the mind/body complex. Regardless of how you see or value > things, if you're a soul that has a body, your true nature will still > always be soul. Is it? Must we embrace the concept of a soul? > > We are not just the natal chart. The natal chart is our inborn fixed > personality. The transiting planets are also present within our > consciousness, and so must be part who we are. In a way, the motion > of the planets represent a more true and fluid expression of our > identity in this very moment. > > Our nature is continuously changing and is not limited to just the > natal chart pattern. Therefore, the transiting planets, as they > relate to our natal characteristics, can be said to represent that > part of us that is always alive and vital. In my view of things, the > outer motion of the planets symbolizes inner soul motion. Its hard to imagine a lifeless soul.... however they exist... Your preception of the transits being a part of our consciousness may be true for some but not for all. There are many paradigms at play here... Our combined charts offers you and I our own paradigm. My DNA or natal picture combined with that of the current new moon is another paradigm. Is there a soul in any of those mentioned paradigms? > > > You are developing a philosophical doctrine.... we hope to expand on > your efforts by educating you to the sidereal paradigm... This is why > you are here.... > > Yes. If we can stay focused on the sidereal question, then this > discussion will continue to be a relevant topic to this group. > > Nice discussion. Thank you. > -Greg When you dance... Do you lead with your Moon or with your Sun? Jivio PS: We'll make a beliver out of you yet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Jivio writes: > ...Predictive work defines the properties which we work with... > Predictive work is the only genuine way factual analysis occurs... > How else can one define relationships among the elements unless we > can anticipate their actions?.... Hi Jivio, You have given me much good food for thought. I will honor your effort by giving most of your comments time to percolate in me. In the meantime, there are a couple of comments I can make. For one thing, I admit to not yet having a clear appreciation for the value of mundane sidereal's contribution to astrological study (esoteric sidereal is another matter; I understand that much better). I sense the value of mundane sidereal, but don't yet quite understand it well enough. More examples, please! Could we possibly do a case study that all could follow? Keep in mind that my reluctance is not out of any desire to put sidereal down or to champion the cause of tropical. As I've said, I think they both have a place in the scheme of things, and I'm interested in learning more about sidereal in this group. But my way is to ask questions until I understand. I'm relatively new to this way of thinking, and it's a bit confusing for me to be translating all of the planetary positions to nearly a sign earlier and expecting to make immediate sense out of it. It will take me some time, so be patient with this slow boy. The tropical chart is my main point of reference only because I have a long history of working with it. But I'm open to seeing things other ways. It means I have to rethink how a planet can mean one thing in a tropical sign, but the same planet in the same time and place means something entirely different in a sidereal sign. What's going on here? Since I'm convinced that both orientations have symbolical significance, it won't do for me to just reject one or the other. That seems to be the easy way out. So I'll just have to keep at it until I get a handle on it. My general sense is that the sidereal approach has more precision in making factual predictions. It maps circumstantial fate. But the tropical is not meant to be factual, so to criticize it for that lack is somehow not the point. Tropical is by nature more indirect and experiential. In this view, facts mean different things in different contexts. For them, a fact is never completely objective, but always relative to the point-of-view being considered. Like a psychological evaluation, it's only one of many interpenetrating factors to be considered. It's one part of a given set of relationships that could change if the relations changed. So it's really a very different way of looking at things. The understand that part of it. The challenge for me is what's actually happening when you shift to the anyanamsa positions? Jivio wrote: >>> ....Yes I'm a soul that has a body... however ... At any given >>> time our perceptions straddle the edge of value... Greg wrote: >> ..Regardless of how you see or value things, if you're a soul that >> has a body, your true nature will still always be soul. Jivio wrote: > Is it? Must we embrace the concept of a soul? Of course not! I've spent many years studying buddhism, a wonderful philosophy, which rejects any notion of a self or a soul. I have a very good understanding of that position. The Dalai Lama has personally visited our group on two occasions, and we have built a special relationship with him over time. I don't happen to agree with him on this point, but that doesn't keep him from respecting the view that accepts the existence of soul, or keep us from having a deep and abiding respect for his view. The concept of a soul does not need to be embraced by anyone. That is only my personal position, as I made clear. Everyone is free to believe as they choose. My comment above is only in answer to your statement, " Yes I'm a soul that has a body. " What I'm saying is that if you take that position, then your bodily perceptions will always arise completely within your soul. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else embrace that position. You're the one who embraced it. I may give my own personal view of things here, if people care to know about it. But that doesn't mean I would ever expect or assume anyone else should agree with me. That would be silly. Find out for yourself what you believe. > PS: We'll make a beliver out of you yet.... That would be nice! -Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 , Greg Kramer <grkramer@t...> wrote: But the > tropical is not meant to be factual, so to criticize it for that lack is > somehow not the point. Tropical is by nature more indirect and > experiential. In this view, facts mean different things in different > contexts. For them, a fact is never completely objective, but always > relative to the point-of-view being considered. Spock would tell you that's illogical... That's precisely why I'll read Arroyo, Spiller, Hand or Hastings for their chatter but would rely on Fagan, Bradley or Blackwell when it came down to charting. Tropical has the numbers today but in the years to follow more and more tropicalists will embrace sidereal charting practices. The signs they are a changing... Its like with Steven's stories the last few days about the sidereal classes held in Hollywood and San Francisco... Once a gifted individual(Indian Astrologer) with the ability to read a natal chart spoke it was understod that another layer of the onion was unfolding. We all expand on our study of stellar science. Thats why the Solar Wind and certain astroids have become functional elements of charting with certain astrologers. When I witnessed a tea ceremony where the leaves were read after the tea had been drunk and a sensitive(some would call a psychic)read individuals in an audience as though she had done their charts. I understood that my pastime of charting was for my own amusement and personal pleasure. Like a psychological > evaluation, it's only one of many interpenetrating factors to be > considered. It's one part of a given set of relationships that could > change if the relations changed. So it's really a very different way of > looking at things. > > The understand that part of it. The challenge for me is what's actually > happening when you shift to the anyanamsa positions? > > You'll see... I caution you to construct sidereal signs out of tropical retoric very carefully. You first work with 5 degrees of one tropical sign and 25 degrees of another tropical sign and attempt to understand then what is the sidereal sign you are constructing..... Add in what you know of the constellations and the stars and a sign is born. Also... Here we are more about the planets and about " practical data " ... I personally monitor the markets and track the psychology of traders. My intentions will embrace tropical thinking but its geared primarily to the CIT(Change in Trend).... As siderealists we tend to work with less to avoid the clutter of confusion...This is not to say we don't add seasoning to our stock... We realize that to duplicate what we have observed requires clarity. In this mundane world we work within, physics plays a greater role. Sun Spot activity will have an effect if in play.... > Jivio wrote: > >>> ....Yes I'm a soul that has a body... however ... At any given > >>> time our perceptions straddle the edge of value... > > Greg wrote: > >> ..Regardless of how you see or value things, if you're a soul that > >> has a body, your true nature will still always be soul. > > Jivio wrote: > > Is it? Must we embrace the concept of a soul? > > Of course not! I've spent many years studying buddhism, a wonderful > philosophy, which rejects any notion of a self or a soul. I have a very > good understanding of that position. The Dalai Lama has personally > visited our group on two occasions, and we have built a special > relationship with him over time. I don't happen to agree with him on > this point, but that doesn't keep him from respecting the view that > accepts the existence of soul, or keep us from having a deep and abiding > respect for his view. > > The concept of a soul does not need to be embraced by anyone. That is > only my personal position, as I made clear. Everyone is free to believe > as they choose. My comment above is only in answer to your statement, > " Yes I'm a soul that has a body. " What I'm saying is that if you take > that position, then your bodily perceptions will always arise completely > within your soul. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else embrace that > position. You're the one who embraced it. Actually Greg you wrote... I'm not sure where this question is coming from. I don't believe the world is an illusion, if that's what you're getting at. Spirit informs matter, and both are real, but spirit is more authentic because it's more truly who we are. For example, I don't believe I'm a person who has a soul; I believe I'm a soul that has a body. -Greg (whew) I was simply echoing your statements that the world is not an illusion and that I am a soul that has a body... however I further stated that at any given time our perceptions straddle the edge of value. This means that the value of a soul or anything else for that matter can be altered by perceptions... I can sit with the Dali Lama and be be perfect without a soul. I can sit with him and be perfect within my soul. > > I may give my own personal view of things here, if people care to know > about it. But that doesn't mean I would ever expect or assume anyone > else should agree with me. That would be silly. Find out for yourself > what you believe. > > > PS: We'll make a beliver out of you yet.... > > That would be nice! > -Greg Its all good... Greg... I appreciate you sharing your views... For all of us it's either good theater or cat calls from the balcony. Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2005 Report Share Posted January 12, 2005 Juan, Thanks again for taking the time to explain the sidereal position. Your input is very helpful. I wrote: > > tropical is not meant to be factual... Tropical is by nature more indirect and experiential. In this view, facts mean different things in different contexts. For them, a fact is never completely objective, but always relative to the point-of-view being considered. You replied: > Spock would tell you that's illogical... That's precisely why I'll read Arroyo, Spiller, Hand or Hastings for their chatter but would rely on Fagan, Bradley or Blackwell when it came down to charting. Well, regardless of how much I come to embrace sidereal, and I think I probably am moving in that direction, I'm not likely to abandon the advantages I see in using the tropical chart. I'll continue to use and value it in my own work precisely because life isn't always logical. Life can be a very indeterminate, wildly irrational, and even contradictory thing at times, and our symbolism needs to also have ways to address these parts of ourselves. For example, I don't see the sidereal perspective as being a strength in charting in-depth psychological profiles, whereas the tropical resonates well to the complexities and nuances of meaning that are as much a part of our experience as anything logical is. But this isn't the place to go on about the tropical zodiac, except as as we can use it to contrast and hopefully clarify our use of the sidereal zodiac. -Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 At 05:28 PM 1/12/05 -0000, Greg wrote: >For example, I don't see the sidereal perspective as being a strength >in charting in-depth psychological profiles... Greg, Why not?? Depth psychology is in the planets rather than the signs. The planetary relationships are exactly the same in any zodiac. I challenge you to show us a chart where the Tropical version tells us more than the sidereal about the way a person functions. (We have to talk about behavior here because no one really knows who another person is under the surface, astrological belief systems notwithstanding.) Since we're not spiritual masters, we can't analyze a person's karma. This is precisely why I am no longer a counseling astrologer, because who am I to say what a person's life/spiritual direction should be? The proper approach is to ask the client questions to help him/her find the answers within, but I lost my patience for that. Takes too much time. It would seem that you'd have to use youself as an example of why the Tropical shows more than the sidereal, since you are the only person you would know thoroughly. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:31:11 -0800, Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 05:28 PM 1/12/05 -0000, Greg wrote: > > >For example, I don't see the sidereal perspective as being a strength > >in charting in-depth psychological profiles... > > Greg, > > Why not?? Depth psychology is in the planets rather than the signs. The planetary relationships are exactly the same in any zodiac. I do agree on that one! ;-) In fact, I have just remembered that the zodiac was rather a place for dignities and debilities (strengths, weaknesses and rulerships though) and had very few " qualities " of its own, according to ancient and medieval astrology (go to Lilly's for instance). Also, I think it is sad to see astrologers that think that astrology just has to do with " psychology " . And I thought Rudhyar and his peers didn't influence the siderealists... I strongly believe the chart shows both what the man is (his psychology) AND what happens to him and he does (his destiny). That is valid whether we use tropical or sidereal astrology. -- With my best regards - François 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.