Tropical-Sidereal...

[Guest guest]

At 01:20 AM 1/20/09 -0000, Dave wrote:

>

>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....

 

Thanks, Dave. I went to the site, but didn't see any verification of birth

times. I don't know the source of the data. Maybe I missed that part of the

site. For those of us who have the Rodden Databank (ADB), it's more

complete with bios and source information plus the Rodden ratings. But the

Khaldea site would be great (if the data is sourced and rated) for a quick

glance at the 1000+ charts on the site. For anyone who's curious about the

site, I copied the paragraph below:

 

" Greetings! You have discovered the cyberspace home of authentic humanistic

and transpersonal astrology and the philosophy and metaphysics of Wholeness

in the 21st Century! Enter CyberWorld Khaldea, and find astrology and

metaphysics that will rock your world! "

 

>[Dave wrote:] 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).

 

[Therese:] I'm wondering if astrology can even describe how one feels

because that's totally in the area of free will and self-determination. All

of our responses are from ourselves rather than from anything outside

ourselves.

 

>[Dave wrote:] 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.

 

[Therese:] Right. A complex problem to put it mildly.

 

[Dave wrote:] It seems, based on the comments of others,

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

>meanings (whose?) actually correct?

 

[Therese:] We can't really say, can we? All we can do is trace the history

of sign meanings and test them with today's charts.

 

[Dave wrote:] Or, do we use another methodology?

 

[Therese:] The entire topic can be so convoluted that I believe it might

take intensive group work for a longer period to come to any conclusions

(or lack of conclusions). This is why the meanings of signs and other

astrological factors may not come into their own until astrology becomes a

discipline worthy of academic study--in which case entire classes would

deal with a single problem. We have only the smallest beginnings with

Kepler College.

 

>[Dave wrote:] 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.

 

[Therese:] I can't say that I bleme you, but you're giving up when the

discussion has barely started. At least stay tuned in for awhile!

 

Therese