Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Hi, friends, This is a " generic " astrology question, that is, neither Tropical nor Sidereal, but then again it may not be. What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should abstain!) As we know, our charts revolve 360 deg. every day and at some time the Asc conjoins our Mercury, etc. Question: Does anybody have any experience with this theory? Do you know of any good daily aspect for " thinking " ? For instance, the idea would be: When is the best time for me to take a test today? Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 At 08:32 PM 8/15/06 -0000, Don wrote: >Hi, friends, >...What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during >the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also >find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should >abstain!)... Hi Don, I have a lot of experience with this one! I think it might depend on the time of day we were born, and when we feel the most awake. I was born around 11:00 a.m., and by far my best time of the day is in the morning. I always tried to schedule college classes in the morning. The 8th house, around 2:00-3:00 to 4:00 p.m. is my very worst time of the day. I'm rather zombie-like at that time and only plan physical chores then, preferably outdoors so I can stay awake. It's a great time to go to the dentist, as I'm too fuzzy headed to care. The (sidereal) Moon rules my 8th, and in my chart the Moon is totaled. Horocopes that seem clear to me in the morning may look like they're written in Ancient Arabic in the afternoon or evening. I'm writing this at 2:51 p.m., and feel as if I'm working in a fog. Time to leave the computer and go work in the garden! All you have to do to find your own answer is watch your hourly cycles, and see when you feel the most alert and alive. I wouldn't be surprisd if late night party people were born in the late evening or at night. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 , " Don Ridgway " <scribe wrote: (snip) What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should abstain!) As we know, our charts revolve 360 deg. every day and at some time the Asc conjoins our Mercury, etc. Question: Does anybody have any experience with this theory? Do you know of any good daily aspect for " thinking " ? Thanks, Don > REPLY: The earth doesn't exactly rotate 360 degrees per day. The Equation of Time, shown on every globe as a " figure 8 " diagram, shows that the Sun arrives earlier and/or later at the MC during various periods in the year. Secondly, an examination of the Sidereal Time at midnight on New Years Eve/Day on one year can be compared to the Sidereal Time the following year -- we find that the Earth has rotated another six hours (with some variation from year to year) during the year. This latter fact contributes to our practice of having a " leap year " every four years to incorporate the extra time. Now, with all these technicalities I am not trying to give you a hard time -- there is a point to this! I use a Sidereal practice in which I use two sequential sidereal solar returns (having the afore mentioned six hours or so difference in Sidereal Time). I proportion the distance between the MC's, plus a full 24 hours ((there is an astronomical and mathematical basis for this)), against 365.25 degrees to get an approximate 1.25 degrees per day progression of the MC as it moves from one solar return to the next. The bottom line is that as the angles of the progressing solar return chart contact natal and transiting planets, the essential expression of those planets (modified somewhat by the role they play in your natal chart) come into action at the angles. Of course these contacts with the angles are short-lived (for a few days), but they highlight when planetary engergies are highly expressive. If you are interested in this I can send you a much deeper explanation and worked examples for you to try yourself. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Wow! Talk about two different views of the same question, mine and Dave's!! Therese At 09:58 PM 8/15/06 -0000, Dave wrote: >REPLY: The earth doesn't exactly rotate 360 degrees per day. The >Equation of Time, shown on every globe as a " figure 8 " diagram, shows >that the Sun arrives earlier and/or later at the MC during various >periods in the year.... > >Now, with all these technicalities I am not trying to give you a hard >time -- there is a point to this! I use a Sidereal practice in which >I use two sequential sidereal solar returns (having the afore >mentioned six hours or so difference in Sidereal Time). I proportion >the distance between the MC's, plus a full 24 hours ((there is an >astronomical and mathematical basis for this)), against 365.25 degrees >to get an approximate 1.25 degrees per day progression of the MC as it >moves from one solar return to the next. > >The bottom line is that as the angles of the progressing solar return >chart contact natal and transiting planets, the essential expression >of those planets (modified somewhat by the role they play in your >natal chart) come into action at the angles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 I was born at night (around 10:00 PM) but my best time is morning. When I first awaken is my most creative time. For me, evening is the time to be passively entertained by books or TV or videos. A person probably just has to discover for themselves during what time of day their brain works best. Bettina _____ On Behalf Of therese hamilton Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:53 PM Re: Thoughtful times? At 08:32 PM 8/15/06 -0000, Don wrote: >Hi, friends, >...What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during >the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also >find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should >abstain!)... Hi Don, I have a lot of experience with this one! I think it might depend on the time of day we were born, and when we feel the most awake. I was born around 11:00 a.m., and by far my best time of the day is in the morning. I always tried to schedule college classes in the morning. The 8th house, around 2:00-3:00 to 4:00 p.m. is my very worst time of the day. I'm rather zombie-like at that time and only plan physical chores then, preferably outdoors so I can stay awake. It's a great time to go to the dentist, as I'm too fuzzy headed to care. The (sidereal) Moon rules my 8th, and in my chart the Moon is totaled. Horocopes that seem clear to me in the morning may look like they're written in Ancient Arabic in the afternoon or evening. I'm writing this at 2:51 p.m., and feel as if I'm working in a fog. Time to leave the computer and go work in the garden! All you have to do to find your own answer is watch your hourly cycles, and see when you feel the most alert and alive. I wouldn't be surprisd if late night party people were born in the late evening or at night. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hi, Therese, I'm the same way, I'm a " morning person, " but I was born 2:45pm. I was looking for some formula, so to speak, to be able to tell the best brain time by someone's birth date/time/place, and not by trial-and-error experiental methods. Like what event in one's daily transits would do it. Another thing along this line is, Can we tell whether a person will be an introvert or an extravert by their sun-moon angle? or is it something else? Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? These are just things I'm working on. I want to find ways to make astrology " usable " and viable in people's lives, and be able to show and maybe even " prove " it to skeptics. Don - therese hamilton Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:53 PM Re: Thoughtful times? At 08:32 PM 8/15/06 -0000, Don wrote: >Hi, friends, >...What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during >the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also >find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should >abstain!)... Hi Don, I have a lot of experience with this one! I think it might depend on the time of day we were born, and when we feel the most awake. I was born around 11:00 a.m., and by far my best time of the day is in the morning. I always tried to schedule college classes in the morning. The 8th house, around 2:00-3:00 to 4:00 p.m. is my very worst time of the day. I'm rather zombie-like at that time and only plan physical chores then, preferably outdoors so I can stay awake. It's a great time to go to the dentist, as I'm too fuzzy headed to care. The (sidereal) Moon rules my 8th, and in my chart the Moon is totaled. Horocopes that seem clear to me in the morning may look like they're written in Ancient Arabic in the afternoon or evening. I'm writing this at 2:51 p.m., and feel as if I'm working in a fog. Time to leave the computer and go work in the garden! All you have to do to find your own answer is watch your hourly cycles, and see when you feel the most alert and alive. I wouldn't be surprisd if late night party people were born in the late evening or at night. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 At 10:40 PM 8/15/06 -0400, Don wrote: >Hi, Therese, > >I'm the same way, I'm a " morning person, " but I was born 2:45pm. Hi Don, Maybe it's simple biology then. Most of us feel best and most alert after a good night's sleep and before we tire from the day's activities. In various parts of the world there's an afternoon siesta time or a long break for tea. This means it's generally recognized that there's a down time in the afternoon. >I was looking for some formula, so to speak, to be able to tell the best brain time by someone's birth date/time/place, and not by trial-and-error experiental methods. Like what event in one's daily transits would do it. I tend to think biology is the answer. The fastest transit is the Moon, but even the Moon takes a while to transit a few degrees. It might be that by watching the Moon's trannsits and maybe Mercury for a few months we might discover the most alert places in our horoscopes. I think it would be entirely individual. >Another thing along this line is, Can we tell whether a person will be an introvert or an extravert by their sun-moon angle? or is it something else? Geoffrey Dean gave a test to astrologers: charts that belonged to extreme extraverts or extreme introverts. No astrologer did better than chance. I think the ADB database probably has charts of these two extremes if you want to study those charts. I have all of Dean's charts--somewhere. His results were based on a standard psychological test. I forget which one. >Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? Probably not or astrologers would have discovered the keys by now. >These are just things I'm working on. I want to find ways to make astrology " usable " and viable in people's lives, and be able to show and maybe even " prove " it to skeptics. Ah, the goal of serious and dedicated astrologers including myself. And so little success we've had! After a lifetime of work I know it's all in the planets, but there is so much variety in how one or two planets can be dominant that simply finding a way to write it all down so it's usable is very difficult. If even two astrologers could cooperate on a simple research project, that would be a first and might produce something useful. We have the individual researchers who run big batches of charts through computers, and a few isolated researchers who realize after awhile that team effort is needed just as in science laboratories. But astrologers seem dedicated to not getting along together. The ADB databank has charts for just about any subject you'd want to research. Where do you want to start? Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Therese, I have latest upgrade to ADB but except for some individual lookups have never been able to figure out how it is supposed to work--it is not intuitive for me--and though I got it for more or less research purposes I've not made the jump. It's beginning to sound like astrology can't " prove " itself! I originally got into astrology to debunk it once and for all. Instead, it kept proving itself to me and so a life-long study began. Sometimes I chuckle as I work with it and though I think I can " see " it, it's so hard to quantify so much of it except by a large research project like you mention. But then, like you say, apparently if it could be done it would have already been done... I myself am very patriotic and have always fought Communism and socialism. I would get into long debates with their true believers and inevitably they would answer the usual charge that " it doesn't work with " : " Well, it's never been tried [correctly]! " I chuckle also to myself that I must be the same way with astrology--I can " see " it even though others can't or don't. Could it be that the theory *is* sublime--it just can't be put to human practice? But, still, in this day and age of computers, etc., if astrology is ever going to escape that " pseudo science " label it's going to have to be able to relatively easily perform the basic tasks I outlined previously, as well as another one I forgot to mention: Be relatively easily able to ascertain the optimum vocation(s) for an individual. I think we can calculate the optimum places for people through astro*carto*graphy, and I think we can calculate the optimum people for people through chart comparison. But can anybody " see " it but us? I mean, I was perfectly happy with doing it myself and " seeing " it myself but this challenge by the skeptics to " scientifically prove " it by their " scientific " standards and rules has got my goat. Best Regards, Don - therese hamilton Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:59 AM Re: Thoughtful times? At 10:40 PM 8/15/06 -0400, Don wrote: >Hi, Therese, > >I'm the same way, I'm a " morning person, " but I was born 2:45pm. Hi Don, Maybe it's simple biology then. Most of us feel best and most alert after a good night's sleep and before we tire from the day's activities. In various parts of the world there's an afternoon siesta time or a long break for tea. This means it's generally recognized that there's a down time in the afternoon. >I was looking for some formula, so to speak, to be able to tell the best brain time by someone's birth date/time/place, and not by trial-and-error experiental methods. Like what event in one's daily transits would do it. I tend to think biology is the answer. The fastest transit is the Moon, but even the Moon takes a while to transit a few degrees. It might be that by watching the Moon's trannsits and maybe Mercury for a few months we might discover the most alert places in our horoscopes. I think it would be entirely individual. >Another thing along this line is, Can we tell whether a person will be an introvert or an extravert by their sun-moon angle? or is it something else? Geoffrey Dean gave a test to astrologers: charts that belonged to extreme extraverts or extreme introverts. No astrologer did better than chance. I think the ADB database probably has charts of these two extremes if you want to study those charts. I have all of Dean's charts--somewhere. His results were based on a standard psychological test. I forget which one. >Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? Probably not or astrologers would have discovered the keys by now. >These are just things I'm working on. I want to find ways to make astrology " usable " and viable in people's lives, and be able to show and maybe even " prove " it to skeptics. Ah, the goal of serious and dedicated astrologers including myself. And so little success we've had! After a lifetime of work I know it's all in the planets, but there is so much variety in how one or two planets can be dominant that simply finding a way to write it all down so it's usable is very difficult. If even two astrologers could cooperate on a simple research project, that would be a first and might produce something useful. We have the individual researchers who run big batches of charts through computers, and a few isolated researchers who realize after awhile that team effort is needed just as in science laboratories. But astrologers seem dedicated to not getting along together. The ADB databank has charts for just about any subject you'd want to research. Where do you want to start? Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Hi Don and others, this is funny because last weekend I was at the annual summer convention of the Astrological Association of Finland and we have an astrologer who relies heavily on the biological daily and yearly cycles (he's naturally a die-hard tropicalist ;o)). He says that you can find the most active time of day for any of your planets by putting planets in meridian houses and equating MC with noon (local mean time, I would think) and IC with midnight and looking where your planets are. So your Sun can be an afternoon Sun (and then you're naturally born in the afternoon), your Jupiter can be a morning Jupiter and so on. Then Mercury would be at it's best too according to where it stands in meridian houses. My Mercury would be at it's best at 12.44 PM. I don't know, could be. I'm definitely not one of those who write or talk in the evening or night! Hindu astrologers say that Mercury has most strength in East, that might simply mean that Mercury is strong in the morning. BTW, isn't it strange that Saturn is said to be strong in West (which correlates with sunset) and Saturday is Saturn's day? Saturn - the great well-known party animal?? Regards, Sari - " Don Ridgway " <scribe Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:32 PM Thoughtful times? > Hi, friends, > > This is a " generic " astrology question, that is, neither Tropical > nor Sidereal, but then again it may not be. > > What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during > the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also > find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should > abstain!) > > As we know, our charts revolve 360 deg. every day and at some time > the Asc conjoins our Mercury, etc. > > Question: Does anybody have any experience with this theory? Do you > know of any good daily aspect for " thinking " ? > > For instance, the idea would be: When is the best time for me to > take a test today? > > Any suggestions are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 totally morning, 8:45 am...even if i go to bed @ 4:00am, i am up as soon as the Sun rises. therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 10:40 PM 8/15/06 -0400, Don wrote: >Hi, Therese, > >I'm the same way, I'm a " morning person, " but I was born 2:45pm. Hi Don, Maybe it's simple biology then. Most of us feel best and most alert after a good night's sleep and before we tire from the day's activities. In various parts of the world there's an afternoon siesta time or a long break for tea. This means it's generally recognized that there's a down time in the afternoon. >I was looking for some formula, so to speak, to be able to tell the best brain time by someone's birth date/time/place, and not by trial-and-error experiental methods. Like what event in one's daily transits would do it. I tend to think biology is the answer. The fastest transit is the Moon, but even the Moon takes a while to transit a few degrees. It might be that by watching the Moon's trannsits and maybe Mercury for a few months we might discover the most alert places in our horoscopes. I think it would be entirely individual. >Another thing along this line is, Can we tell whether a person will be an introvert or an extravert by their sun-moon angle? or is it something else? Geoffrey Dean gave a test to astrologers: charts that belonged to extreme extraverts or extreme introverts. No astrologer did better than chance. I think the ADB database probably has charts of these two extremes if you want to study those charts. I have all of Dean's charts--somewhere. His results were based on a standard psychological test. I forget which one. >Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? Probably not or astrologers would have discovered the keys by now. >These are just things I'm working on. I want to find ways to make astrology " usable " and viable in people's lives, and be able to show and maybe even " prove " it to skeptics. Ah, the goal of serious and dedicated astrologers including myself. And so little success we've had! After a lifetime of work I know it's all in the planets, but there is so much variety in how one or two planets can be dominant that simply finding a way to write it all down so it's usable is very difficult. If even two astrologers could cooperate on a simple research project, that would be a first and might produce something useful. We have the individual researchers who run big batches of charts through computers, and a few isolated researchers who realize after awhile that team effort is needed just as in science laboratories. But astrologers seem dedicated to not getting along together. The ADB databank has charts for just about any subject you'd want to research. Where do you want to start? Therese Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Hi, Sari, That was a great tip, thanks. I spent the morning on it with my chart, but the only way it could work is if from the MC (as 12 Noon) you counted the hours counterclockwise around the chart down to Midnight (the IC). That would give me an 11 o'clock AM Mercury. I think my brain kicks in around around 7 or 8 or 9 AM. But that's close. Has anybody else tried this? Best Regards, Don - Sari Metsovuori Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:45 AM Re: Thoughtful times? Hi Don and others, this is funny because last weekend I was at the annual summer convention of the Astrological Association of Finland and we have an astrologer who relies heavily on the biological daily and yearly cycles (he's naturally a die-hard tropicalist ;o)). He says that you can find the most active time of day for any of your planets by putting planets in meridian houses and equating MC with noon (local mean time, I would think) and IC with midnight and looking where your planets are. So your Sun can be an afternoon Sun (and then you're naturally born in the afternoon), your Jupiter can be a morning Jupiter and so on. Then Mercury would be at it's best too according to where it stands in meridian houses. My Mercury would be at it's best at 12.44 PM. I don't know, could be. I'm definitely not one of those who write or talk in the evening or night! Hindu astrologers say that Mercury has most strength in East, that might simply mean that Mercury is strong in the morning. BTW, isn't it strange that Saturn is said to be strong in West (which correlates with sunset) and Saturday is Saturn's day? Saturn - the great well-known party animal?? Regards, Sari - " Don Ridgway " <scribe Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:32 PM Thoughtful times? > Hi, friends, > > This is a " generic " astrology question, that is, neither Tropical > nor Sidereal, but then again it may not be. > > What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during > the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also > find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should > abstain!) > > As we know, our charts revolve 360 deg. every day and at some time > the Asc conjoins our Mercury, etc. > > Question: Does anybody have any experience with this theory? Do you > know of any good daily aspect for " thinking " ? > > For instance, the idea would be: When is the best time for me to > take a test today? > > Any suggestions are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 , " Sari Metsovuori " <gerdapp wrote: > > that Saturn is said to be strong in West (which correlates with sunset) and > Saturday is Saturn's day? Saturn - the great well-known party animal?? > ..... never heard that before....always thought saturn was a serious personna..would love to know more about tbis side of him... cheers bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 I thought that " party animal " line was meant to be sarcastic as we generally think of Saturn as being the planet of seriousness and dourness, but then there's Saturnalia, a big Roman festival, which was harvest-based and may (I'm not sure about this) included some orgiastic goings on. Saturn used to have to do with some good stuff, notably harvest; now people just see the dark side of it mostly. Saturn is strong in 7th as it is the house of death in the Vedic system, meaning not just the physical death of a human being, but decomposition, chaos. These things connect with the concept of harvest, which marks the time of death in the life cycles of crops. Bettina _____ On Behalf Of theblisswithin Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:19 AM Re: Thoughtful times? @ <%40> , " Sari Metsovuori " <gerdapp wrote: > > that Saturn is said to be strong in West (which correlates with sunset) and > Saturday is Saturn's day? Saturn - the great well-known party animal?? > ...... never heard that before....always thought saturn was a serious personna..would love to know more about tbis side of him... cheers bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Don's post suggesting astrological studies of Myers-Briggs, etc., seems to me a powerfully constructive idea, in that personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs should demonstrably correlate with some factor or combination of factors in natal charts. It may boil down to a histogram of planetary " strengths " , not unlike the Dasa Varga system. The criteria for which points of strength are calculated might need a lot of refinement, but this does make sense to me. Now, Myers-Briggs is a statistically-based evaluation, based on a continuum along four axes: Introversion-Extraversion, Intuitive- Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging (which is really orientation toward openness or closure). This breaks down into 16 combinations, but that's a bit arbitrary, because middle positions are also possible. One could theoretically map this terrain in astrological language and test out what works. The mapping might not be straightforward, say, a " strong mercury " might show a certain signature pattern across all four axes, and some weighted summation of planets might then generate scores on each of the four axes. There are more complicated personality tests, such as the Cattell " 16 PF " , yes, with 16 separate category scores. It's no minor piece of work to investigate this, but it's certain that if the interpretations of natal charts are any good, patterns rather than noise would emerge and the answers would provide feedback to sharpen astrological tools. Say, that Jupiter and the Sun might both, when " strong " , add points to the Extraversion scale. Equally so, or is one planet's contribution greater in proportion? How many " points " are given for each factor contributing to what counts as " strength " ? Are some factors valueless? Maybe studies of this sort have already been done somewhere? Not a few people have disparaged Gauquelin's studies re the " Mars Effect " because the approach is astrologically non-traditional. What excites me though is that Gauquelin made a huge step in the direction of objectively demonstrating that there is something interesting happening in the way of planetary effects, even if understanding of the mechanism behind them is far in the future. We're perhaps in an age of Alchemy here, with foundations that may open unimagined worlds, and that's exciting when one's minds is a bit open to possibilities. Julia INFP " morning person " sidereal sun-moon conj Libra; Taurus asc. > Another thing along this line is, Can we tell whether a person will be an introvert or an extravert by their sun-moon angle? or is it something else? > > Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? > > These are just things I'm working on. I want to find ways to make astrology " usable " and viable in people's lives, and be able to show and maybe even " prove " it to skeptics. > > Don > > - > therese hamilton > > Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:53 PM > Re: Thoughtful times? > > > At 08:32 PM 8/15/06 -0000, Don wrote: > >Hi, friends, > >...What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during > >the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also > >find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should > >abstain!)... > > Hi Don, > > I have a lot of experience with this one! I think it might depend on the > time of day we were born, and when we feel the most awake. I was born > around 11:00 a.m., and by far my best time of the day is in the morning. I > always tried to schedule college classes in the morning. The 8th house, > around 2:00-3:00 to 4:00 p.m. is my very worst time of the day. I'm rather > zombie-like at that time and only plan physical chores then, preferably > outdoors so I can stay awake. It's a great time to go to the dentist, as > I'm too fuzzy headed to care. The (sidereal) Moon rules my 8th, and in my > chart the Moon is totaled. > > Horocopes that seem clear to me in the morning may look like they're > written in Ancient Arabic in the afternoon or evening. I'm writing this at > 2:51 p.m., and feel as if I'm working in a fog. Time to leave the computer > and go work in the garden! > > All you have to do to find your own answer is watch your hourly cycles, and > see when you feel the most alert and alive. I wouldn't be surprisd if late > night party people were born in the late evening or at night. > > Therese > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Hi Bettina and others, yes, it was meant to be sarcastic. But seriously speaking, I think there's more to Saturn than this usual " planet of seriousness, heavyness and dourness " and dull, grey bureocracy etc., but I haven't yet figured out the exact nature of it. I liked your notes of Saturnalia festival, decomposition, chaos, harvest... death, corrosion... these are Saturnian things indeed. I find it extremely interesting that in the Vedic system Saturn is an airy planet and Mercury is earthy, not the other way. I see here a sad Saturnian wind over a desert bringing decay and finality with it... it's logical also because both the Moolatrikona and exaltations signs of Saturn are airy signs and with Mercury it's earth. Having been observing the sidereal Sun signs recently (Sun signs because they're often intriguingly visible in people), I would say sidereal Air (especially Aquarius)might well be the most mystical element of all. Another observation that I've made about the sidereal Sun signs is that Therese would seem to be right in that it's actually the feminine signs that are more " extrovert " (whatever we mean by that word). If we have a cycle, any cycle, it can be divided in two parts: the feminine, in-breathing, moist, growing half representing involution (a Rudhyarian term), cathering experiences (also North Node of the Moon); and the masculine, out-breating, dry, contracting half representing evolution, assimilating experiences, giving things away (South Node of the Moon). Regards, Sari - " Bettina Woolard " <chiria Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:19 PM RE: Re: Thoughtful times? >I thought that " party animal " line was meant to be sarcastic as we >generally > think of Saturn as being the planet of seriousness and dourness, but then > there's Saturnalia, a big Roman festival, which was harvest-based and may > (I'm not sure about this) included some orgiastic goings on. Saturn used > to > have to do with some good stuff, notably harvest; now people just see the > dark side of it mostly. > > > > Saturn is strong in 7th as it is the house of death in the Vedic system, > meaning not just the physical death of a human being, but decomposition, > chaos. These things connect with the concept of harvest, which marks the > time of death in the life cycles of crops. > > > > > > Bettina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 Hi, Julia, I think your comments are really important and you share the same feelings toward astrology and science I have. I remember 15 years ago I was a computer programmer contractor and the company (GTE) had everybody take the Myers-Briggs. This came up as part of another company project and I had been sitting next who turned out to be the M-B's representative for several days and we got along very well. As usual (the inveterate astrologer) I had managed to get her birthdate and comparing our charts there were sextiles and trines all over the place. (We were both married--don't speculate about that!) But what got my attention in this case was that our M-B classifications were identical. This piqued my interest in personality tests vs astrology and at the time I wanted to do an astrological study to correlate them--because the questions seemed to be simple definitions of various astro aspects--positive or negative--but I seemed never to have the time to explore it. Now I have more time and it still interests me. Now you see people on internet newsgroups and forums discussing their M-B scores and they seem to be similar for the forum. Interesting. Don't tell anybody but I recently took the eHarmony " personality test " to see where it correlated astrologically. I wanted to see if it asked for your birthdate--it did, mmm, do you think they used it? doubt it. It had a lot of " real world " questions pertaining to compatibility and I put it in my " to-do " file with the M-B for future research. (As an aside, I answered every question totally honestly [perhaps more-so than if I were taking it for real], even putting " Helena Blavatsky " down as my favorite author. Nowhere on there did it ask if you were married. I was tickled that I got many " interested " hits to communicate further with gals from Alaska to Florida. I never communicated with any of them further, besides you had to pay to do that.) BTW I came away thinking that if I were single that would be an excellent way to have a chance of meeting some pretty compatible people, any comments? Best Regards, Don - Julia Cybele Saturday, August 19, 2006 12:28 AM Re: Thoughtful times? Don's post suggesting astrological studies of Myers-Briggs, etc., seems to me a powerfully constructive idea, in that personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs should demonstrably correlate with some factor or combination of factors in natal charts. It may boil down to a histogram of planetary " strengths " , not unlike the Dasa Varga system. The criteria for which points of strength are calculated might need a lot of refinement, but this does make sense to me. Now, Myers-Briggs is a statistically-based evaluation, based on a continuum along four axes: Introversion-Extraversion, Intuitive- Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging (which is really orientation toward openness or closure). This breaks down into 16 combinations, but that's a bit arbitrary, because middle positions are also possible. One could theoretically map this terrain in astrological language and test out what works. The mapping might not be straightforward, say, a " strong mercury " might show a certain signature pattern across all four axes, and some weighted summation of planets might then generate scores on each of the four axes. There are more complicated personality tests, such as the Cattell " 16 PF " , yes, with 16 separate category scores. It's no minor piece of work to investigate this, but it's certain that if the interpretations of natal charts are any good, patterns rather than noise would emerge and the answers would provide feedback to sharpen astrological tools. Say, that Jupiter and the Sun might both, when " strong " , add points to the Extraversion scale. Equally so, or is one planet's contribution greater in proportion? How many " points " are given for each factor contributing to what counts as " strength " ? Are some factors valueless? Maybe studies of this sort have already been done somewhere? Not a few people have disparaged Gauquelin's studies re the " Mars Effect " because the approach is astrologically non-traditional. What excites me though is that Gauquelin made a huge step in the direction of objectively demonstrating that there is something interesting happening in the way of planetary effects, even if understanding of the mechanism behind them is far in the future. We're perhaps in an age of Alchemy here, with foundations that may open unimagined worlds, and that's exciting when one's minds is a bit open to possibilities. Julia INFP " morning person " sidereal sun-moon conj Libra; Taurus asc. > Another thing along this line is, Can we tell whether a person will be an introvert or an extravert by their sun-moon angle? or is it something else? > > Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? > > These are just things I'm working on. I want to find ways to make astrology " usable " and viable in people's lives, and be able to show and maybe even " prove " it to skeptics. > > Don > > - > therese hamilton > > Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:53 PM > Re: Thoughtful times? > > > At 08:32 PM 8/15/06 -0000, Don wrote: > >Hi, friends, > >...What I'm trying to ascertain is how to find the best time(s) during > >the day a person can think. (The corollary might be you could also > >find the worst time of day to do critical thinking, and should > >abstain!)... > > Recent Activity a.. 3New Members Visit Your Group Avatars Face the World Show your style & mood in Messenger. Tech Make Tech Easy Useful How-To Tips & Product Guides. Y! Answers Ask, Answer, Find A new way to find information. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 , " Bettina Woolard " <chiria wrote: > > I thought that " party animal " line was meant to be sarcastic as we generally > think of Saturn as being the planet of seriousness and dourness, Thanks for pointing that out Bettiana. I guess my own saturn in ascendant makes me rather serious. My apologies to the original poster. Someone mentioned that vedically saturn is considered an airy planet and mercury a grounded planet. Would love to know about these confounds. How does vedic take differ on aquarious and capricorn anyway. Maybe there are some clues there. One can see mercury being grounded in virgo and yet airy in gemini at least... BTW, what have the latest astronomical findings done lately, since I dont have the time to follow them. Is Pluto still a planet or is it no longer one being too small and having erratic orbits or something? Cheers Bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 At 06:08 AM 8/16/06 -0400, Don wrote: >Therese, > >I have latest upgrade to ADB but except for some individual lookups have never been able to figure out how it is supposed to work--it is not intuitive for me--and though I got it for more or less research purposes I've not made the jump. Hi Don, I'm late in replying to posts of the last few days. What I was trying to say is that if you go to the Personality filter tab, the extraversion and introversion categories are listed. You can call up each category and study the charts for patterns. You probably have an astrological program that links to ADB so you can click on 'chart,' and the chart comes up on the screen? This is the most useful feature of ADB in my opinion. You can also print out all the E-I charts if you want to so you can go through them in a more leisurely way. >It's beginning to sound like astrology can't " prove " itself! Actually, I've found some rather easy-to-see patterns for agressive traits and a few other categories. But there has been little interest because I use the sidereal zodiac. I don't believe the answer is in large batches of charts, but in finding the ways different planets show their strengths. So a 'strong Moon' will manifest in one way, a strong but badly placed Mars' in another way, and so forth. The Gauquelins demonstrated that 'it's all in the planets.' Now it's up to us to find the various ways that planets express their different traits. What makes Venus loving and gentle in one case and insanely jealous in another? >I chuckle also to myself that I must be the same way with astrology--I can " see " it even though others can't or don't. Could it be that the theory *is* sublime--it just can't be put to human practice? It might be more accurate to say that it's beyond our human understanding at this point in time. A spiritual master can see the astrological underpinnings (see P. Yogananda's chapter on 'Outwitting the Stars' in AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI). But we have only human sight, and cannot see much of the picture. >But, still, in this day and age of computers, etc., if astrology is ever going to escape that " pseudo science " label it's going to have to be able to relatively easily perform the basic tasks I outlined previously, as well as another one I forgot to mention: Be relatively easily able to ascertain the optimum vocation(s) for an individual. We should at least be able to see the latter (vocations), and there are so many charts in the vocational category in ADB that I don't understand why astrologers aren't working on this. Again, it all seems to come down to planetary patterns, which is what was used in Hellenistic astrology to describe the vocations a person was suited for. >I think we can calculate the optimum places for people through astro*carto*graphy... There is no way to prove this since a person can't be in two places at once, so we cannot know what would have happened in another location. An important transit will always occur when a person makes a major move from one place to another. In retrospect I haven't found much support for Astro*catto*graphy. For example the location where I met and married my husband was no where near a Venus line. >I mean, I was perfectly happy with doing it myself and " seeing " it myself but this challenge by the skeptics to " scientifically prove " it by their " scientific " standards and rules has got my goat. We won't have much success until at least a few astrologers pool their approaches to charts and cooperate in research projects. That way there is someone to point out to another person that a particular technique or appraoch is too broad or too complex--whatever, or they're missing XYZ (like another zodiac, for instance). Please excuse errors in this post or others I'm posting today. My eyes seem to be blurry. Might be the atmosphere today. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 At 04:28 AM 8/19/06 -0000, Julia wrote: > >...Now, Myers-Briggs is a statistically-based evaluation, based on a >continuum along four axes: Introversion-Extraversion, Intuitive- >Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging (which is really >orientation toward openness or closure). This breaks down into 16 >combinations, but that's a bit arbitrary, because middle positions >are also possible. Julia, wouldn't this be much to complicated for astrological research? We have trouble seeing simple patterns like aggression. But 16 combinations? Now if we could work with only one or two pairs of opposites...? First, of course, is that we fully understand the descriptions of each category. I will have to find Geoffrey Dean's project and see which test he used. >It's no minor piece of work to investigate this, but it's certain >that if the interpretations of natal charts are any good, patterns >rather than noise would emerge and the answers would provide feedback >to sharpen astrological tools. Say, that Jupiter and the Sun might >both, when " strong " , add points to the Extraversion scale. Equally >so, or is one planet's contribution greater in proportion? How many > " points " are given for each factor contributing to what counts as > " strength " ? Are some factors valueless? Maybe studies of this sort >have already been done somewhere? If astrologers have tried this approach, their methods of determining strength haven't worked. But I believe you have the basic idea of the best way to approach personality research. We have some initial charts at our fingertips for study in ADB. Then we can always move to psychological test results. >... We're perhaps in an >age of Alchemy here, with foundations that may open unimagined >worlds, and that's exciting when one's minds is a bit open to >possibilities. So why isn't the work being done by astrologers? Why don't astrologers tune into the sense of excitement inherent in adventure and discovery? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In reply to Don, who wrote: >> Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a >person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it >easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? Don, do you have the birth dates, times and scores for those who took this test? Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2006 Report Share Posted August 20, 2006 Here's some astrological excitement. John Mark Karr, born Dec 11 1964. One arm of his Grand Cross is tight triple conjunction of Mars, Uranus and Pluto. If you run it through a small program, like Kepler's Cosmo, no birth time, it reads just like all the comments about him on TV for the past two days. He could've done it; he certainly wants to have done it. - therese hamilton Saturday, August 19, 2006 5:38 PM Re: Thoughtful times? At 04:28 AM 8/19/06 -0000, Julia wrote: > >...Now, Myers-Briggs is a statistically-based evaluation, based on a >continuum along four axes: Introversion-Extraversion, Intuitive- >Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging (which is really >orientation toward openness or closure). This breaks down into 16 >combinations, but that's a bit arbitrary, because middle positions >are also possible. Julia, wouldn't this be much to complicated for astrological research? We have trouble seeing simple patterns like aggression. But 16 combinations? Now if we could work with only one or two pairs of opposites...? First, of course, is that we fully understand the descriptions of each category. I will have to find Geoffrey Dean's project and see which test he used. >It's no minor piece of work to investigate this, but it's certain >that if the interpretations of natal charts are any good, patterns >rather than noise would emerge and the answers would provide feedback >to sharpen astrological tools. Say, that Jupiter and the Sun might >both, when " strong " , add points to the Extraversion scale. Equally >so, or is one planet's contribution greater in proportion? How many > " points " are given for each factor contributing to what counts as > " strength " ? Are some factors valueless? Maybe studies of this sort >have already been done somewhere? If astrologers have tried this approach, their methods of determining strength haven't worked. But I believe you have the basic idea of the best way to approach personality research. We have some initial charts at our fingertips for study in ADB. Then we can always move to psychological test results. >... We're perhaps in an >age of Alchemy here, with foundations that may open unimagined >worlds, and that's exciting when one's minds is a bit open to >possibilities. So why isn't the work being done by astrologers? Why don't astrologers tune into the sense of excitement inherent in adventure and discovery? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In reply to Don, who wrote: >> Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a >person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it >easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? Don, do you have the birth dates, times and scores for those who took this test? Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2006 Report Share Posted August 20, 2006 Indeed, Therese, working with 16 separate personality factors would be painfully complex. Many of Cattell's axes are rather technical, e.g., " cyclothymia " . In trying to examine Myers-Briggs patterns, one approach would be to make a best-fit model of the planetary " personalities " and evaluate the contribution of each planet's strengths against the four axes mapped by Myers-Briggs ... Something like this: Sun E S T J Moon I N F P Mars E N F J Mercury I S T J Jupiter E N T J Venus E S F P Saturn I S T P This is just a possible idea, and perhaps not the most perfect mapping, but working with something like this, then four axis scores could be generated, say with Dasa Varga scores for each planet's contribution figured something like this: I -> E score= Sun-Moon+Mars-Mercury+Jupiter+Venus-Saturn N -> S score= Sun-Moon-Mars+Mercury-Jupiter+Venus+Saturn F -> T score= Sun-Moon-Mars+Mercury+Jupiter-Venus+Saturn P -> J score= Sun-Moon+Mars+Mercury+Jupiter-Venus-Saturn 5 is the neutral value, as it is with the Dasa Varga scores for individual planets, in which case the planet is classes as " Simhasana " . Special class names exist for scores of 2 through 10, being the number out of 10 selected divisional charts, in which the planet is assessed as favorable or strong. With each of the four composites above, scores below 5 will be on the I, N, F, or P polarity, while scores above 5 will be E, S, T, or J, respectively. Exactly 5 means " X " , in the neutral position. If my Dasa Varga planets evaluate like this: Sun=3 Moon=8 Mars=8 Mercury=3 Jupiter=6 Venus=6 Saturn=8 then I will show as an INFP, slightly introverted and strongly intuitive, feeling, and perceiving: I= 4 and N=F=P= -2. That happens to replicate my Myers-Briggs profile quite exactly, but this model rests on several assumptions not likely to be sufficiently correct for this to hold up generally: (1) The correctness of the planetary profiles - here the INFP type is assumed to represent a " lunar " archetype. Maybe that's not the best fit. (2) The correctness of the Dasa Varga method for assessing the strength of each planet, i.e., a " 10 " Saturn maning that Saturn is at its best possible expression in all areas, most " in character " . The value of Dasa Varga as a tool is certainly debatable. There are many other methods of rating the relative strengths of the planets. Anyway, all this is just a theoretical model of how one might begin correlating astrological data with modern personality assessments in either validating an astrological-based analysis, or showing that that particular method does not work. Consider this exercise as a stimulus for better ideas on how to go about matching astrological portraits to ostensibly " objective " assessments of personality. This looks fairly complex, but software (e.g. Maitreya's Dream) gives you the Dasa Varga info, which can do directly to formulas on an Excel sheet. With enough data, you have feedback to improve the model and perhaps make a significant discovery. , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 04:28 AM 8/19/06 -0000, Julia wrote: > > > >...Now, Myers-Briggs is a statistically-based evaluation, based on a > >continuum along four axes: Introversion-Extraversion, Intuitive- > >Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging (which is really > >orientation toward openness or closure). This breaks down into 16 > >combinations, but that's a bit arbitrary, because middle positions > >are also possible. > > Julia, wouldn't this be much to complicated for astrological research? We > have trouble seeing simple patterns like aggression. But 16 combinations? > Now if we could work with only one or two pairs of opposites...? First, of > course, is that we fully understand the descriptions of each category. I > will have to find Geoffrey Dean's project and see which test he used. > > >It's no minor piece of work to investigate this, but it's certain > >that if the interpretations of natal charts are any good, patterns > >rather than noise would emerge and the answers would provide feedback > >to sharpen astrological tools. Say, that Jupiter and the Sun might > >both, when " strong " , add points to the Extraversion scale. Equally > >so, or is one planet's contribution greater in proportion? How many > > " points " are given for each factor contributing to what counts as > > " strength " ? Are some factors valueless? Maybe studies of this sort > >have already been done somewhere? > > If astrologers have tried this approach, their methods of determining > strength haven't worked. But I believe you have the basic idea of the best > way to approach personality research. We have some initial charts at our > fingertips for study in ADB. Then we can always move to psychological test > results. > > >... We're perhaps in an > >age of Alchemy here, with foundations that may open unimagined > >worlds, and that's exciting when one's minds is a bit open to > >possibilities. > > So why isn't the work being done by astrologers? Why don't astrologers tune > into the sense of excitement inherent in adventure and discovery? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > In reply to Don, who wrote: > > >> Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a > >person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it > >easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? > > Don, do you have the birth dates, times and scores for those who took this > test? > > Therese > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2006 Report Share Posted August 20, 2006 Hi, Julia, I'm listening to your beautiful Carmen Galliambica as I write this. :^) But since I can't find an agreed-upon date for the founding of Rome I can't figure out your dob to help me with following your formula so let me just make these comments. I have Parashara's Light but have not used it, I would suppose it has the Dasa Varga computation, right? And, does that incorporate house positions? I had hoped we would not need exact times of day to do our astrological Myers-Briggs, that is, use houses, because to me that brings in as many more levels of complexity as there are houses, like " intuitive *in what area* of your life? " --could one be intuitive physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually? It's so hard to get exact times, so few people know their exact time dob. Then as you know there's rectification... Where I am going with this is, first of all, I wonder about the correctness of the M-B as a personality test per se. I mean, does it measure the right attributes? Is this the model we should strive to emulate? But I do think it would be great if we could come up with an M-B astrological correlation from just a birth date, that is my goal. Here is the path I visualized for myself and I always thought it would incorporated somewhat a " proof " of the efficacy of the Sidereal vs. Tropical zodiacs. First, assemble a number of charts of obvious agreed-upon extroverts and introverts; sensing and intuitive; thinking and feeling, and judging and percepting as per M-B--and go from there. You get the idea. (You also see these catagories " overlap " somewhat in astrological theory.) I would do each chart of our exemplars in both Tropical and Sidereal. I would look at how they fell out according to the elements of planetary signs/constellations, the classical " elements " earth, water, air, fire, with earth/water as physical/feeling and air/fire as intellectual/spiritual. You could almost make a case that each of the M-B categories correlated with each of the elements. I would see which--if any--zodiac more correctly identified with the categories we were measuring because you get mostly different signs/elements for each. You see what I mean. At any rate, I think the starting point would have to be a stack of charts of people who clearly belonged in each of the M-B categories and then we worked our astrological alchemy from there. Best Regards, Don - Julia Cybele Sunday, August 20, 2006 4:11 AM Re: Thoughtful times? Indeed, Therese, working with 16 separate personality factors would be painfully complex. Many of Cattell's axes are rather technical, e.g., " cyclothymia " . In trying to examine Myers-Briggs patterns, one approach would be to make a best-fit model of the planetary " personalities " and evaluate the contribution of each planet's strengths against the four axes mapped by Myers-Briggs ... Something like this: Sun E S T J Moon I N F P Mars E N F J Mercury I S T J Jupiter E N T J Venus E S F P Saturn I S T P This is just a possible idea, and perhaps not the most perfect mapping, but working with something like this, then four axis scores could be generated, say with Dasa Varga scores for each planet's contribution figured something like this: I -> E score= Sun-Moon+Mars-Mercury+Jupiter+Venus-Saturn N -> S score= Sun-Moon-Mars+Mercury-Jupiter+Venus+Saturn F -> T score= Sun-Moon-Mars+Mercury+Jupiter-Venus+Saturn P -> J score= Sun-Moon+Mars+Mercury+Jupiter-Venus-Saturn 5 is the neutral value, as it is with the Dasa Varga scores for individual planets, in which case the planet is classes as " Simhasana " . Special class names exist for scores of 2 through 10, being the number out of 10 selected divisional charts, in which the planet is assessed as favorable or strong. With each of the four composites above, scores below 5 will be on the I, N, F, or P polarity, while scores above 5 will be E, S, T, or J, respectively. Exactly 5 means " X " , in the neutral position. If my Dasa Varga planets evaluate like this: Sun=3 Moon=8 Mars=8 Mercury=3 Jupiter=6 Venus=6 Saturn=8 then I will show as an INFP, slightly introverted and strongly intuitive, feeling, and perceiving: I= 4 and N=F=P= -2. That happens to replicate my Myers-Briggs profile quite exactly, but this model rests on several assumptions not likely to be sufficiently correct for this to hold up generally: (1) The correctness of the planetary profiles - here the INFP type is assumed to represent a " lunar " archetype. Maybe that's not the best fit. (2) The correctness of the Dasa Varga method for assessing the strength of each planet, i.e., a " 10 " Saturn maning that Saturn is at its best possible expression in all areas, most " in character " . The value of Dasa Varga as a tool is certainly debatable. There are many other methods of rating the relative strengths of the planets. Anyway, all this is just a theoretical model of how one might begin correlating astrological data with modern personality assessments in either validating an astrological-based analysis, or showing that that particular method does not work. Consider this exercise as a stimulus for better ideas on how to go about matching astrological portraits to ostensibly " objective " assessments of personality. This looks fairly complex, but software (e.g. Maitreya's Dream) gives you the Dasa Varga info, which can do directly to formulas on an Excel sheet. With enough data, you have feedback to improve the model and perhaps make a significant discovery. , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 04:28 AM 8/19/06 -0000, Julia wrote: > > > >...Now, Myers-Briggs is a statistically-based evaluation, based on a > >continuum along four axes: Introversion-Extraversion, Intuitive- > >Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging (which is really > >orientation toward openness or closure). This breaks down into 16 > >combinations, but that's a bit arbitrary, because middle positions > >are also possible. > > Julia, wouldn't this be much to complicated for astrological research? We > have trouble seeing simple patterns like aggression. But 16 combinations? > Now if we could work with only one or two pairs of opposites...? First, of > course, is that we fully understand the descriptions of each category. I > will have to find Geoffrey Dean's project and see which test he used. > > >It's no minor piece of work to investigate this, but it's certain > >that if the interpretations of natal charts are any good, patterns > >rather than noise would emerge and the answers would provide feedback > >to sharpen astrological tools. Say, that Jupiter and the Sun might > >both, when " strong " , add points to the Extraversion scale. Equally > >so, or is one planet's contribution greater in proportion? How many > > " points " are given for each factor contributing to what counts as > > " strength " ? Are some factors valueless? Maybe studies of this sort > >have already been done somewhere? > > If astrologers have tried this approach, their methods of determining > strength haven't worked. But I believe you have the basic idea of the best > way to approach personality research. We have some initial charts at our > fingertips for study in ADB. Then we can always move to psychological test > results. > > >... We're perhaps in an > >age of Alchemy here, with foundations that may open unimagined > >worlds, and that's exciting when one's minds is a bit open to > >possibilities. > > So why isn't the work being done by astrologers? Why don't astrologers tune > into the sense of excitement inherent in adventure and discovery? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > In reply to Don, who wrote: > > >> Another astrological problem I'm working on is categorizing a > >person according to their Meyer-Briggs rating--can astrology do it > >easier--and more accurately--just by looking at certain aspects? > > Don, do you have the birth dates, times and scores for those who took this > test? > > Therese > 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.