psychology and astrology

[Guest guest]

Greg wrote:

> >For example, I don't see the sidereal perspective as being a

strength in charting in-depth psychological profiles...

 

Therese wrote:

> 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....

 

Hi Therese,

I may have stated that too strongly. It was a quickly typed message

that I didn't spend much time on. What I meant to say, and which you

may still disagree with, is that my experience of tropical is that it

has always been very compatible with a psychodynamic/therapeutic

approach. I come from a long line of counselors, and I know from

first-hand experience that tropical is a great counseling tool. My

impression of the sidereal zodiac, as far as I understand it, is that

it's not used as much for penetrating into the depths of the

individual psyche as the tropical is. Psychology is certainly

involved in the playing out of events, but then the event itself is

the primary consideration.

 

Of course there will be psychology in the sidereal model. But it

doesn't seem to be the central focus of analysis. It seems to be more

about the interaction of the individual or individuals with the world

or with some immediate or upcoming situation. Wouldn't you agree that

there is a pretty strong emphasis with sidereal on the outcome of sets

of circumstances that people get associated with? That's a mundane

approach, not psychological. We all have psychological experiences

around events, but isn't the event the thing the chart erected for?

 

Also, I'm not sure about this, but I'll ask. You said you gave up

doing personal readings and now prefer just doing sidereal work.

Would this be an indication that you're less involved in doing

psychological work now, or were your readings also done in sidereal?

 

I see sidereal as having a fated quality to it, and that sense of fate

comes from the individual getting caught up in trends, events, and

situations that are generally of a public nature and so bigger or

broader than a personal concern. The chart is narrowing in to

identify a specific prediction or event, and the individual gets more

or less carried along with the momentum of things as they unfold.

This would reduce the amount of choice available in decision-making.

 

But with the tropical zodiac, the individual's personal path, be it

spiritual or otherwise, plays a central role in how the chart is read.

This chart is not narrowing, but widening out to allow for all the

possibilities that life has to offer.

 

Okay, I'm getting the distinction more clearly now. The tropical

deals with the relation of a part to the whole. It's the microcosmic

view of things, or how a person relates as an individual to the

wholeness of his or her environment. The purpose of the part is to

manifest the order which will eventually become the law of the whole.

This orientation allows the individual a certain amount of freedom to

create one's own individual path to wholeness.

 

Now the sidereal would be the wholeness in which the part

participates, so to speak. This deals with a macrocosmic view, or the

point-of-view of the earth or the situation as a whole, with someone

getting caught up in it. The purpose of thw whole is to establish the

order and law that its parts will manifest. This orientation is more

fated because the part must fit in to pre-arranged conditions and obey

those rules.

 

This explains how the sidereal is ultimately a more encompassing

zodiac, because it starts with the bigger picture and brings it down

to a person's fated place in it, while the tropical starts with the

person and tries to universalize that individuality, which then

becomes an illimitable potential. So the sidereal is more objective

and determined (or " practical, " as you guys like to call it), while

the tropical is more subjective and liable to variation.

 

Sorry to get off on that. Did it make any sense? I think I hit on

something there, but I'll have to go back and sift it out.

 

Anyway, one difficulty you and I might be having here is that I don't

agree with you that psychology is only in the planets. I would agree

that it's only through the planets that anything we can experience can

be activated or manifested. But just because psychology is expressed

through the planets doesn't mean it originates there, and I don't

believe it does.

 

In my experience, the four elements are integral to the functioning of

the tropical zodiac, and are part of what determines the dignities and

strengths of planets. (I'm not quite sure how the elements play out

in the sidereal; perhaps you can enlighten me.) The elements in the

tropical zodiac can definitely be correlated to Carl Jung's four

psychological types. In a 1936 article, Jung admitted that he

modelled his four functions after the four elemental triangles of

astrology. He also wouldn't talk to a patient without at least a

quick look at the person's chart. So here we have a psychology of the

signs as personally practiced by the foremost psychotherapist of the

20th Century. That's a clear case of psyche in the zodiac.

 

These elements form the substance of the tropical zodiac, and I'd say

they fit the psychology of natal charts pretty snugly. At least they

fit the charts I've been doing for more than 30 years. That substance

is brought to life by being activated by the planets and through

modifications of those functionings in their angular relationships. I

would need to see justification that this isn't so.

 

The planets can be identified as the points in the chart where the

psychology is pinpointed and activated, but it's a mistake to assume

that they can create all of our experience all by themselves. Their

role in the chart is to administer the intelligences provided by the

cosmos, including the zodiacal degrees, the signs, the houses, the

midpoints, the parts, the nodes, and so on, and deliver that knowledge

to the earth and to us.

 

The fact that the planetary relationships don't change in different

zodiacs, as you've stated, is to me a clear indication that they must

have a consistent and unchanging function to perform, regardless of

the variety of influences they are bringing to life. What they do is

mediate whatever knowledge is available in the cosmos; but in

themselves, they have only their own characteristics as planets.

 

Planets are colored by many factors such as whether they are in

dignity or not (as determined by the signs), whether they're angular,

succedent, or cadent (as determined by the houses), whether they're in

one element versus another, or whether they're in cardinal signs

versus fixed or mutable signs. Then they're each sitting on one of

the 360 degrees, which adds another layer of meaning. Then each

planet has its own network of relations to all the others.

 

This array of influences are all conditions for the expression of

planetary meaning, but the planets themselves can only hold to their

own particular mode of operation. This involves psychology in that

each planet has an archetypal functioning, such as will or feeling or

knowing, but those archetypes are the clearly paradigms that reveal

the psychology, and are not the mental processing itself.

 

So any differences between the zodiacs would have to be seen in the

zodiacs themselves rather than in the planets, or else in an

investigation into the factors that make them different.

 

-Greg

[Guest guest]

Greg, I think what you mean to say is that Tropical **astrologers** have

emphasized the psychological while Fagan school astrologers have emphasized

the mundane. Jyotish has always dealt with events and prediction.

 

There's not an inherent difference in the astrology itself. It's the

astrologers who have had different approaches. Therefore...if astrologers

who use the sidereal zodiac want to discuss psychology as well as events,

the psychology will be there. No need to refer to another zodiac. As a

matter of fact (as Ron Grimes pointed out), the psychology will be more

accurate in the sidereal because it's the sidereal signs that are the true

domiciles of the planets.

 

O.K. Want to debate this point? It would be easy to test (one planet at a

time) taking the psychological profiles of people in the Rodden/McDonough

astrodatabank. You can call up any one of a large number of psychological

traits in ADB and study the situation of the planets. If astrologers would

discuss these profiles in forums instead of going on endlessly with

opinions and philosophizing, we might have a science by now.

(more below)

 

At 08:06 AM 1/13/05 -0000, Greg wrote:

 

>What I meant to say, and which you

>may still disagree with, is that my experience of tropical is that it

>has always been very compatible with a psychodynamic/therapeutic

>approach...

>...

Wouldn't you agree that

>there is a pretty strong emphasis with sidereal on the outcome of sets

>of circumstances that people get associated with? That's a mundane

>approach, not psychological.

 

Yes, the past mind set of sidereal astrologers deals with circumstances and

events rather than psychology. This is one reason that a natal astrology

has never been developed. What siderealists have done is try to apply

timing techniques to the natal chart. In my opinion this doesn't work. They

are two different animals.

 

>Also, I'm not sure about this, but I'll ask. You said you gave up

>doing personal readings and now prefer just doing sidereal work.

>Would this be an indication that you're less involved in doing

>psychological work now, or were your readings also done in sidereal?

 

I prefer using the sidereal *zodiac*. I'm basically interested in research,

in verifying astrology in some way. The mindset of counselors is as

*helpers.* I'm definitely not a helper type, and don't like people being

dependent on me. I'm not at all involved in the psychological now except to

test groups of horoscopes for a psychological traits. People are a

frustrating bunch. They don't really want to change.

 

>But with the tropical zodiac, the individual's personal path, be it

>spiritual or otherwise, plays a central role in how the chart is read.

 

The **BIG** problem here is that astrologers really can't see the personal

path of clients. They just think they can. Sure...if an astrologer has time

to be a counselor--many sessions of sensitive questioning and

discussion--they may discover the path(s) together. But this isn't how

astrologers work. They don't have the time. They give lots of false advice.

I've see god-awful horoscope interpretations by professionals at

conferences. At that point I left the Tropical field of astrology.

 

Bottom line: We can't see into another person's soul. Are we astrologers or

do we really want to be therapists? In that case, go to college and get

your professional degrees. (I did--got a psychological counseling M.A.--and

then changed my mind about the kind of work I wanted to do.)

 

It boils down to " What is Astrology? What is its purpose? "

 

I'm sorry, Greg. I don't have time to get into and absorb the long

paragraphs in your post. I see the question as simple: " Can sidereal

astrology zero in on behavior patterns of individuals? "

 

Can we tell by the situation of Mars if Jim can control his temper? Can we

tell by the situation of Venus if Carol has what it takes to form

harmonious, lasting relationships? "

 

Fewer words in favor of the in-depth study of actual horoscopes. We might

actually learn something!

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese,

 

Very interesting post. If I may butt in, I'd like to offer a few

comments...

 

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> O.K. Want to debate this point? It would be easy to test (one

> planet at a time) taking the psychological profiles of people

> in the Rodden/McDonough astrodatabank. You can call up any one

> of a large number of psychological traits in ADB and study the

> situation of the planets. If astrologers would discuss these

> profiles in forums instead of going on endlessly with opinions

> and philosophizing, we might have a science by now.

 

Good idea, but the problem I have had with this is that astrologers

often like to talk about rising signs as though they exist in a

vacuum. They'll read a sign's characteristics and see if this

applies to such-and-such individual, without considering that a Leo

rising, for example, might appear like a totally different persona

if either:

 

a) other planets closely conjoin/aspect the rising degree, OR

b) the ascendant lord is heavily influenced by other planets.

 

The situation becomes so muddle at that point that I find most

astrologers incapable of sorting things out.

 

 

> What siderealists have done is try to apply timing techniques

> to the natal chart. In my opinion this doesn't work. They

> are two different animals.

 

I would have to disagree here, if I understand your point here. One

of the key predictive factors I have often used/stated is this:

 

* No significant event will occur in anyone's life (whether person

or entity) unless there are what I refer to as " natal triggers " .

These natal triggers are indicated either by a) natal

conjunctions/aspects, or b) relationships shown in divisional

charts. These " natal triggers " are set in stone from birth, just

like your DNA structure.

 

* Whether or not these natal triggers ever get " fired " depends

totally on the vimshottari dasa, which I have often described as a

capsule full of tiny time pellets - each designed to release its

substance at different intervals. Each dasa/bhukti/pratyantardasha

segment is like a tiny time pellet, containing event(s) set to go

off at a given time. So, if a natal trigger exists based on a Saturn-

Mars configuration, but you never live to see a Saturn-Mars bhukti,

then there exists the possibility of a natal trigger remaining

latent and never firing.

 

I state the above to say that I can predict events solely based on

natal triggers and the running of the appropriate period. The

transits are " intensity indicators " that either ameliorate or

aggravate the event. That is why astrologers look at charts and see

an ominous transit and nothing occurs - much to their dismay.

Looking at transits, solar arcs, progressions, out of context of

this timeline (vimshottari dasa) makes an astrologer predict

blindfolded.

 

Another key I have discovered is this. These natal triggers are set

to go off at a given time in a person's life. You must know when

that is and whether that trigger has already been fired. If it has,

subsequent activations of that trigger will be on a lesser scale.

Case in point, when I predicted that W's Venus affliction a couple

years back would affect his younger sibling, but on a lesser scale,

it was because his Venus trigger affecting younger siblings had

already been fired in full intensity in his youth when his sister,

Robin, was diagnosed with leukemia and died. If an astrologer

doesn't understand that W's Venus trigger is tied to siblings and

that it has already been fired with its greatest intensity early in

life, they will look at transits to this point throughout George's

life and predict events more ominous than what is called for.

 

 

> I'm definitely not a helper type, and don't like people being

> dependent on me. I'm not at all involved in the psychological

> now except to test groups of horoscopes for a psychological

> traits. People are a frustrating bunch. They don't really want

> to change.

 

Amen! And besides, most psychological type readings only tell the

person (for the most part) what the person already knows. It's self

indulgence to get such a reading of " Ok, tell me about myself. " The

best way to help someone spiritually is to let them know the events

that will/may befall them in the future so they can acquire some

level of equanimity of mind, which is the basis of any true

spiritual path and growth.

 

Rony

[Guest guest]

Hi Rony,

 

I'll have to reply to your post later when there's more time. But I wanted

to say that in ADB we pull up the charts with a trait, and then we look

only at the planet that's supposed to relate to that trait, such as Mars to

anger or Venus to the ability to relate.

 

Events are a whole different ball game.

 

I only have seconds right now and just glanced at your post, so I may well

be missing something. More this evening.

 

Therese

 

 

 

At 06:16 PM 1/13/05 -0000, you wrote:

>

>

>Therese,

>

>Very interesting post. If I may butt in, I'd like to offer a few

>comments...

>

> , Therese Hamilton

><eastwest@s...> wrote:

>> O.K. Want to debate this point? It would be easy to test (one

>> planet at a time) taking the psychological profiles of people

>> in the Rodden/McDonough astrodatabank. You can call up any one

>> of a large number of psychological traits in ADB and study the

>> situation of the planets. If astrologers would discuss these

>> profiles in forums instead of going on endlessly with opinions

>> and philosophizing, we might have a science by now.

>

>Good idea, but the problem I have had with this is that astrologers

>often like to talk about rising signs as though they exist in a

>vacuum. They'll read a sign's characteristics and see if this

>applies to such-and-such individual, without considering that a Leo

>rising, for example, might appear like a totally different persona

>if either:

>

>a) other planets closely conjoin/aspect the rising degree, OR

>b) the ascendant lord is heavily influenced by other planets.

>

>The situation becomes so muddle at that point that I find most

>astrologers incapable of sorting things out.

>

>

>> What siderealists have done is try to apply timing techniques

>> to the natal chart. In my opinion this doesn't work. They

>> are two different animals.

>

>I would have to disagree here, if I understand your point here. One

>of the key predictive factors I have often used/stated is this:

>

>* No significant event will occur in anyone's life (whether person

>or entity) unless there are what I refer to as " natal triggers " .

>These natal triggers are indicated either by a) natal

>conjunctions/aspects, or b) relationships shown in divisional

>charts. These " natal triggers " are set in stone from birth, just

>like your DNA structure.

>

>* Whether or not these natal triggers ever get " fired " depends

>totally on the vimshottari dasa, which I have often described as a

>capsule full of tiny time pellets - each designed to release its

>substance at different intervals. Each dasa/bhukti/pratyantardasha

>segment is like a tiny time pellet, containing event(s) set to go

>off at a given time. So, if a natal trigger exists based on a Saturn-

>Mars configuration, but you never live to see a Saturn-Mars bhukti,

>then there exists the possibility of a natal trigger remaining

>latent and never firing.

>

>I state the above to say that I can predict events solely based on

>natal triggers and the running of the appropriate period. The

>transits are " intensity indicators " that either ameliorate or

>aggravate the event. That is why astrologers look at charts and see

>an ominous transit and nothing occurs - much to their dismay.

>Looking at transits, solar arcs, progressions, out of context of

>this timeline (vimshottari dasa) makes an astrologer predict

>blindfolded.

>

>Another key I have discovered is this. These natal triggers are set

>to go off at a given time in a person's life. You must know when

>that is and whether that trigger has already been fired. If it has,

>subsequent activations of that trigger will be on a lesser scale.

>Case in point, when I predicted that W's Venus affliction a couple

>years back would affect his younger sibling, but on a lesser scale,

>it was because his Venus trigger affecting younger siblings had

>already been fired in full intensity in his youth when his sister,

>Robin, was diagnosed with leukemia and died. If an astrologer

>doesn't understand that W's Venus trigger is tied to siblings and

>that it has already been fired with its greatest intensity early in

>life, they will look at transits to this point throughout George's

>life and predict events more ominous than what is called for.

>

>

>> I'm definitely not a helper type, and don't like people being

>> dependent on me. I'm not at all involved in the psychological

>> now except to test groups of horoscopes for a psychological

>> traits. People are a frustrating bunch. They don't really want

>> to change.

>

>Amen! And besides, most psychological type readings only tell the

>person (for the most part) what the person already knows. It's self

>indulgence to get such a reading of " Ok, tell me about myself. " The

>best way to help someone spiritually is to let them know the events

>that will/may befall them in the future so they can acquire some

>level of equanimity of mind, which is the basis of any true

>spiritual path and growth.

>

>Rony

" 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:

>/

>

[Guest guest]

At 06:16 PM 1/13/05 -0000, Ron Grimes wrote:

>

>...

>Good idea, but the problem I have had with this is that astrologers

>often like to talk about rising signs as though they exist in a

>vacuum. They'll read a sign's characteristics and see if this

>applies to such-and-such individual, without considering that a Leo

>rising, for example, might appear like a totally different persona

>if either:

>

>a) other planets closely conjoin/aspect the rising degree, OR

>b) the ascendant lord is heavily influenced by other planets.

>

>The situation becomes so muddled at that point that I find most

>astrologers incapable of sorting things out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Right, and this is where it often becomes impossible to discuss a horoscope.

 

>I would have to disagree here, if I understand your point here.

 

I think we're on two different tracks. What I was referring to is the

western sidereal doctrine that only angular planets have real import. If

you apply this to natal charts, you would get a blank reading if no planets

were near the angles, or you could only look at one or two planets.

 

Yes, I agree about natal triggers, divisional charts and dasa periods. I'm

not leaving these paragraphs in this post to keep it reasonably short.

 

>...So, if a natal trigger exists based on a Saturn-

>Mars configuration, but you never live to see a Saturn-Mars bhukti,

>then there exists the possibility of a natal trigger remaining

>latent and never firing.

 

Yes, this is a supremely important part of timing, and there's nothing in

western astrology to equal the dasa/bhukti timing triggers.

 

>I state the above to say that I can predict events solely based on

>natal triggers and the running of the appropriate period.

 

I hope you'll give us many examples in this forum because I've had some

trouble in this area--sometimes not getting the results of periods right.

 

>...Another key I have discovered is this. These natal triggers are set

>to go off at a given time in a person's life. You must know when

>that is and whether that trigger has already been fired. If it has,

>subsequent activations of that trigger will be on a lesser scale.

 

This is a new thought for me.

 

>Case in point, when I predicted that W's Venus affliction a couple

>years back would affect his younger sibling, but on a lesser scale,

>it was because his Venus trigger affecting younger siblings had

>already been fired in full intensity in his youth when his sister,

>Robin, was diagnosed with leukemia and died...

 

Then to give a reasonably correct prediction, the astrologer must first

obtain a life history from a client. In this respect, it would be easier to

be accurate for well known public figures where we know most of the

important life events.

 

>The best way to help someone spiritually is to let them know the events

>that will/may befall them in the future so they can acquire some

>level of equanimity of mind, which is the basis of any true

>spiritual path and growth.

 

" Eqanimity of mind... " So difficult in the world the way it is unless the

individual has learned how to develop a sense of inner peace. There might

be a way other than meditation, but I don't know of it.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Ron,

 

--- The

> best way to help someone spiritually is to let them know the events

> that will/may befall them in the future so they can acquire some

> level of equanimity of mind, which is the basis of any true

> spiritual path and growth.

>

 

Like most astrologers who do predictive work, I have often wondered about

this point and whether letting people know likely events is useful in any

sense, including the preparing the ground for the " spiritual path " .

Astrology is often the tool of the neurotic, the self-indulgent, the

fearful, the bored, and the wealthy.

 

The popular writer and lecturer Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now) describes

acceptance of the present moment as the basis for the spiritual path and

true happiness. If this is true, then I wonder what purpose pre-knowledge

of future events might be. For many people, foreknowledge would hamper

access to the enlightenment. The point is to accept the present moment

without regard for what might happen based on the opinion of some

astrologer under one's employ.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

http://info.mail./mail_250

[Guest guest]

Greg,

 

Thanks for taking the time to write about your views of the tropical

zodiac. I don't think you'll get too many takers here, but perhaps you

might want to provide more examples of charts where the tropical chart was

clearly superior in revealing/helping the client understand themselves.

My feeling is that tropical charts appear to give more succour to clients

because that is the orientation of the astrologers interpreting the chart.

Sidereally oriented astrologers could do the same, but generally don't

find this approach to the chart to be interesting. We all do some sort of

psychological reading when we interpret a chart, the question is how long

one wishes to spend on it? I think siderealists tend to me more meat and

potatoes type astrologers, I know I am. And since we are, we tend to

attract clients who have similar interests.

 

On a larger issue, I'm not sure that psychology is a useful model for

astrology to imitate. Much harm has been done to people through the

application of various psychological theories in the 20th century. All

with the claim of science behind them, and yet pardoxically, psychological

theory is non-falsifiable. None of its claims, Freudian, Jungian or

otherwise have any basis in empirical science.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't helpful to people. That many people

do find comfort through counselling perhaps says more about the need to

people to find a compassionate caring human to share their experience of

life and suffering on this planet. I suspect that any paradigm,

psycholological, astrological, Christian, etc would give comfort as long

as it was patient-centered. The greatest help we can be for each other is

to listen and offer support.

 

Priests and ministers and rabbis used to perform this function. Now in

the age of science, it is highly paid doctors of psychology with PhDs. In

a parallel universe, who knows, it may be a team of overpaid astrologers.

 

Chris

 

--- mr_greg_kramer <grkramer wrote:

 

>

> Greg wrote:

> > >For example, I don't see the sidereal perspective as being a

> strength in charting in-depth psychological profiles...

>

> Therese wrote:

> > 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....

>

> Hi Therese,

> I may have stated that too strongly. It was a quickly typed message

> that I didn't spend much time on. What I meant to say, and which you

> may still disagree with, is that my experience of tropical is that it

> has always been very compatible with a psychodynamic/therapeutic

> approach. I come from a long line of counselors, and I know from

> first-hand experience that tropical is a great counseling tool. My

> impression of the sidereal zodiac, as far as I understand it, is that

> it's not used as much for penetrating into the depths of the

> individual psyche as the tropical is. Psychology is certainly

> involved in the playing out of events, but then the event itself is

> the primary consideration.

>

> Of course there will be psychology in the sidereal model. But it

> doesn't seem to be the central focus of analysis. It seems to be more

> about the interaction of the individual or individuals with the world

> or with some immediate or upcoming situation. Wouldn't you agree that

> there is a pretty strong emphasis with sidereal on the outcome of sets

> of circumstances that people get associated with? That's a mundane

> approach, not psychological. We all have psychological experiences

> around events, but isn't the event the thing the chart erected for?

>

> Also, I'm not sure about this, but I'll ask. You said you gave up

> doing personal readings and now prefer just doing sidereal work.

> Would this be an indication that you're less involved in doing

> psychological work now, or were your readings also done in sidereal?

>

> I see sidereal as having a fated quality to it, and that sense of fate

> comes from the individual getting caught up in trends, events, and

> situations that are generally of a public nature and so bigger or

> broader than a personal concern. The chart is narrowing in to

> identify a specific prediction or event, and the individual gets more

> or less carried along with the momentum of things as they unfold.

> This would reduce the amount of choice available in decision-making.

>

> But with the tropical zodiac, the individual's personal path, be it

> spiritual or otherwise, plays a central role in how the chart is read.

> This chart is not narrowing, but widening out to allow for all the

> possibilities that life has to offer.

>

> Okay, I'm getting the distinction more clearly now. The tropical

> deals with the relation of a part to the whole. It's the microcosmic

> view of things, or how a person relates as an individual to the

> wholeness of his or her environment. The purpose of the part is to

> manifest the order which will eventually become the law of the whole.

> This orientation allows the individual a certain amount of freedom to

> create one's own individual path to wholeness.

>

> Now the sidereal would be the wholeness in which the part

> participates, so to speak. This deals with a macrocosmic view, or the

> point-of-view of the earth or the situation as a whole, with someone

> getting caught up in it. The purpose of thw whole is to establish the

> order and law that its parts will manifest. This orientation is more

> fated because the part must fit in to pre-arranged conditions and obey

> those rules.

>

> This explains how the sidereal is ultimately a more encompassing

> zodiac, because it starts with the bigger picture and brings it down

> to a person's fated place in it, while the tropical starts with the

> person and tries to universalize that individuality, which then

> becomes an illimitable potential. So the sidereal is more objective

> and determined (or " practical, " as you guys like to call it), while

> the tropical is more subjective and liable to variation.

>

> Sorry to get off on that. Did it make any sense? I think I hit on

> something there, but I'll have to go back and sift it out.

>

> Anyway, one difficulty you and I might be having here is that I don't

> agree with you that psychology is only in the planets. I would agree

> that it's only through the planets that anything we can experience can

> be activated or manifested. But just because psychology is expressed

> through the planets doesn't mean it originates there, and I don't

> believe it does.

>

> In my experience, the four elements are integral to the functioning of

> the tropical zodiac, and are part of what determines the dignities and

> strengths of planets. (I'm not quite sure how the elements play out

> in the sidereal; perhaps you can enlighten me.) The elements in the

> tropical zodiac can definitely be correlated to Carl Jung's four

> psychological types. In a 1936 article, Jung admitted that he

> modelled his four functions after the four elemental triangles of

> astrology. He also wouldn't talk to a patient without at least a

> quick look at the person's chart. So here we have a psychology of the

> signs as personally practiced by the foremost psychotherapist of the

> 20th Century. That's a clear case of psyche in the zodiac.

>

> These elements form the substance of the tropical zodiac, and I'd say

> they fit the psychology of natal charts pretty snugly. At least they

> fit the charts I've been doing for more than 30 years. That substance

> is brought to life by being activated by the planets and through

> modifications of those functionings in their angular relationships. I

> would need to see justification that this isn't so.

>

> The planets can be identified as the points in the chart where the

> psychology is pinpointed and activated, but it's a mistake to assume

> that they can create all of our experience all by themselves. Their

> role in the chart is to administer the intelligences provided by the

> cosmos, including the zodiacal degrees, the signs, the houses, the

> midpoints, the parts, the nodes, and so on, and deliver that knowledge

> to the earth and to us.

>

> The fact that the planetary relationships don't change in different

> zodiacs, as you've stated, is to me a clear indication that they must

> have a consistent and unchanging function to perform, regardless of

> the variety of influences they are bringing to life. What they do is

> mediate whatever knowledge is available in the cosmos; but in

> themselves, they have only their own characteristics as planets.

>

> Planets are colored by many factors such as whether they are in

> dignity or not (as determined by the signs), whether they're angular,

> succedent, or cadent (as determined by the houses), whether they're in

> one element versus another, or whether they're in cardinal signs

> versus fixed or mutable signs. Then they're each sitting on one of

> the 360 degrees, which adds another layer of meaning. Then each

> planet has its own network of relations to all the others.

>

> This array of influences are all conditions for the expression of

> planetary meaning, but the planets themselves can only hold to their

> own particular mode of operation. This involves psychology in that

> each planet has an archetypal functioning, such as will or feeling or

> knowing, but those archetypes are the clearly paradigms that reveal

> the psychology, and are not the mental processing itself.

>

> So any differences between the zodiacs would have to be seen in the

> zodiacs themselves rather than in the planets, or else in an

> investigation into the factors that make them different.

>

> -Greg

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

http://info.mail./mail_250

[Guest guest]

, Christopher Kevill

<ckevill> wrote:

> For many people, foreknowledge would hamper access to the

> enlightenment. The point is to accept the present moment

> without regard for what might happen based on the opinion

> of some astrologer under one's employ.

 

I of course agree that is the ultimate goal. For me, knowing the

future has reinforced my awareness of the transient nature of all

phenomena. I guess it depends on the personality of the individual

and whether foreknowledge is an aid or hindrance.

 

Rony

[Guest guest]

HI All

I guess I better jump in here. I was a full time pro. Tropical

astrologer when I made the leap to sidereal via Vedic.

 

At first, I would simply " give " a little extra to my tropical clients

so I could " test " the sidereal.

 

Well, I still run the tropical horoscope because folks are most

familiar with it. I spend about 5 minutes to talk about the Sun and

Moon " signs " and look at the lunar phases because it is easier for

folks to see on this chart. I also run it because my tropical

program give me a graph or key so they can read the Vedic chart.

 

Then zoom I'm off to the Vedic.

 

I do " counsel " clients but in my experience and practice, the Vedic

chart goes deeper than the surface actions of the personality. I

find that the nakshatras are mose useful in this.

 

I guess I'm succoring them but it is useful to them and fascinating

to me. I just don't think you can understand Michael Moore (y'all

know where I've been lately) without seeing him with the Moon grabbed

by Rahu, influenced by Mars and influenced by Mula.

 

still smiling

c