Tropical-Sidereal and Sun-Ascendant study of well-known people

[Guest guest]

Therese and List Members.

I've gone through my selected charts of well-known people to see who

had an unaspected Ascendant and/or Sun. Why was I surprised to find

that these engaged people all had strongly aspected ascendant and sun

positions. On the other hand, the couch potatoes of this world would

be good subjects but they are not well known and also not worth the

time and effort for commenting on --- astrologically speaking.

 

So, we either deal with aspect-complexities or we abandon this

approach to comparing tropical and sidereal influences. Or, we go

through the Khaldea chart gallery (where the names listed are directly

linked to a chart presentation) to find non-aspected (strongly)

Ascendant and Sun charts. I had picked my set of charts based on the

fact that I had some sense of the personality behind the person. In

many cases with celeberties and media-present people, we know of them

but we have less sense of their personality. Dave

[Guest guest]

At 04:25 PM 1/18/09 -0000, Dave wrote:

>Therese and List Members.

>I've gone through my selected charts of well-known people to see who

>had an unaspected Ascendant and/or Sun. Why was I surprised to find

>that these engaged people all had strongly aspected ascendant and sun

>positions {?} On the other hand, the couch potatoes of this world would

>be good subjects but they are not well known and also not worth the

>time and effort for commenting on --- astrologically speaking.

 

Dave, I believe you're saying here that noted people have strongly aspected

Suns and/or ascendants while those of little accomplishment have fewer

aspects? The problem with this appraoch is that everyone born during the

same day has the same aspects, at least to the Sun.

 

So why do we have a Barack Obama amidst thousands of ordinary people born

the same day? What makes the difference? Obama is fully manifesting his

potential while the others are not. One key is most likely the placement of

planets in the diurnal circle, not in the aspects themselves.

 

I've just read that Robert Schmidt has put together from ancient texts an

entirely new understading of aspects and their complexities. This system,

as I understand it, is full of twists and turns that we don't yet take into

consideration today. In other words, we may have only a kindergarten

understanding of aspects.

 

>[Dave wrote:]So, we either deal with aspect-complexities or we abandon this

>approach to comparing tropical and sidereal influences. Or, we go

>through the Khaldea chart gallery...

 

What is the Khaldea chart gallery? Aspects: they are the same in tropical

or sidereal, so how can they help with the zodiac?

 

>... (where the names listed are directly

>linked to a chart presentation) to find non-aspected (strongly)

>Ascendant and Sun charts. I had picked my set of charts based on the

>fact that I had some sense of the personality behind the person.

 

The problem with the personality appraoch is that the ancient astrologers

didn't view charts in that way. They emphasized destiny and accomplishment.

I've found the most important core personality traits to be much more in

the navamsa rather than the natal chart. It's possible that the natal chart

itself only deals with external concepts: If the person is likely to

manifest his potential--his external behavior as apart from internal

motivation, etc. But tropical astrology has used this external chart as a

picture of motivation and personality. This may be incorrect.

 

>...in many cases with celeberties and media-present people, we know of them

>but we have less sense of their personality.

 

That's true. Personality and skills or accomplishment are two different

areas for study. It's much easier to judge what a person has done in life

(as Michael Flatley and Martha Stewart) rather than their underlying

motivation. We can observe the behavior of celebrities, but we can't know

what they *are* in their hearts. Even ordinary people are a confusion of

contradictions and motivations.

 

This is why astrological study (at least for the time being) has to deal

with externals. Why, for example, has Michael Flatley obained cult status

and world renown while thousands of other dancers have not? What's the

astrological signature for that? At least the ascendant and aspects (as you

suggested) must be a key. But this isn't necessarily personality per se.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese,

The Khaldea Chart Gallery at

http://www.khaldea.com/chartgallery.shtml list a great number of

well known people alphabetically. Clicking on a name pops up a chart

and data on that person. This makes it quick to explore charts which,

for the case at hand, can be examined to see if aspects to the

Ascendant and or the Sun exist. The charts are all tropical, but

since we would only be looking for few/none aspects to the Ascendant

or Sun, this approach would be fine.

 

As noted before, and as you noted, finding famous people whom we

" know " in terms of their character and personality is difficult, We

know what they did, not what they felt. This is true of the

Natal-Solar Return-Progressed Daily Angles Charts (PSSRs) charts that

I use for prediction. In actuality, the charts define the nature of

the event, not directly the way one felt about the event or how they

valued the event, just how they experienced the event (or the factors

at play in how they experienced the event).

 

So, are we back to the confrontation of methods; defining the Sidereal

Signs based on planetary rulers and how they express themselves in

various ways, or trying to make a case for one zodiac and against the

other in terms of whose 30 degree sector of space is right relative to

interpretive meanings. It seems, based on the comments of others,

that there are others approaches to take on this issue. Are ancient

meanings (whose?) actually correct? Or, do we use another

methodology? I'm still of the opinion, after all of the work I've

done, that none of the signs are worth bothering with. I'm open to

having my mind changed, but for now . . . no signs. Dave