To Patrice

[Guest guest]

I was never directly concerned with the Moon in this posting sequence,

focusing on just the Asc. and the Sun. The purpose of this approach

was to see if Sun-Sign astrology (Sidereal or Tropical) would lead to

a clearer case of which set of meanings is more useful. For me, up to

this period, I've found neither zodiac to highly significant in chart

work. I like to work with those factors that are as close to being

highly dependable (approaching 100%?) as is possible. So far, I've

found planets, cycle-phase relationships and angles to be in that

category, with houses being somewhat useful in natal and mundane charts.

 

Perhaps you can contribute to the upcoming posting of possible sign

meanings? I've found Sari's comments about the more ancient meanings

to be more interesting rather than the modern books. Dave

[Guest guest]

I made excuses to you.

 

Sun as derteminant of horoscope had began in 830 with Albumasar

(creator of tropicalism). The definition of zodiac signs date back to

6 000 years B.P (sumerian and harappean civilisations). The sign

attributes correspond with moon position, no with the Sun.

 

The real destiny and personnality were retranscribes by the moon

position in sign, not the Sun, not the Ascendant, excepted when a

planet or luminar raised at the East... In India, we're speaking of

" Chandra Lagna " (Moon Ascendant).

 

You can read my works in my blog:

 

http://astrologie.eklablog.com/

 

We are three in this world (Christopher Kevill, Therese Hamilton and

me) to explain and defend sidereal astrology in Occident.

 

P.S: For you, Michael Schumacher, Fernando Alonso or Lewis Hamilton

have their Moon in Gemini or Cancri ?

[Guest guest]

, " Patrice " <aartbouriche

wrote:

 

> We are three in this world (Christopher Kevill, Therese Hamilton and

> me) to explain and defend sidereal astrology in Occident.

 

Well, that makes a lot off work for only three persons...

 

--

Seasons' Greetings,

François