Reply to John about Solar Return Book

[Guest guest]

John and Therese, thank you for your replies.

I'll address my remarks mainly to John because Therese has been exposed to some

of my thoughts over the past couple of years.

 

I have found that writing a book has led me to refine many of my practices in

terms of being able to explain them more clearly and to take the time in my

writing to then illustrate them. Many charts can be chosen to make a point but

I don't shy away from facing up to those inconsistencies that often arise. In

my book, I have a chapter on Fagan's SQ daily angles charts, a method which I

don't favor due to it not being consistent but only being in the

sometimes-it-works, sometimes-it-doesn't-work category. Yet, the examples I

present show it at its best. I also discuss some phenomena associated with SQ's

that I haven't seen discussed anywhere ---- these being almost " obvious " to me,

and practices which are very revealing. If you are one who uses SQ's, I can

share some of those details.

 

In my book, I base much of the procedures on the MC-Solar Cycle, the cycle that

we see reflected in the changing chart positions from one solar return to the

next solar return as the MC advances about 3 signs and the Sun changes its chart

position by about 3 houses. Fagan describes the reason behind the changes

reasonably well, but doesn't make the case well relative to it being the

fundamental cycle behind the PSSR angles. I diagram the MC-Solar Cycle in

several ways, and then launch off of it to develop a much deeper meaning behind

the interpretation of angle meanings, what the significance of angles returning

to angles (natal to S/R, natal to PSSR) means in terms of the events one

encounters. Along with this I have created a new mid-point approach which has

shown itself to be highly meaningful when it is activated. All of this goes

beyond the everyday practice of Sidereal astrologers using partile aspects of

planets conjuncting angles----a hit-and-miss practice that seems to drive them

to the necessity of using Novian charts, demi and quarterly returns, returns of

the solar return moon, anything and everything until they stumble across that

one chart that explains everything.

 

As you can see, I tend to offend some of the dogmatic crowd, but that is because

of my confidence in what I do and my lack of patience about those who seem to

try overly hard to complicate things as a means of covering their shortcomings.

We all have our weaker areas and I have eaten humble pie at times, but I know

what works for me. So, I am always for an honest effort to understand and will

share with anyone is is interested.

 

As I noted earlier, I can work with either zodiac as a basis for positional

measurement. Not using signs enables this peculiar approach to work for me. In

the past, Therese has attempted to show me how Sidereal signs apply but I seem

to have mental blocks in that area as to the underlying mythical and rulership

relations between the planets and Sidereal signs coupled with both the

distinctions between Tropical and Sidereal and the source-basis of meanings for

the Sidereal signs --- all of this being an unclear area for me. Dave

, " Dr. John D. Andre " <DrJDAndre

wrote:

>

> Hello Dave:

>

> Thanks for this. It sounds like you have a very thoughtful approach. I

> look forward to your coming book. I agree that way too much of our

> beloved astro is dogma driven . . . but then, isn't that simply human

> nature?

>

> I mainly 'lurk' in the background, not having too much to say -

> attempting to avoid putting my foot in my mouth too often. I've been a

> student of the stars for about 45 years, and consider myself a devoted

> learner. My ignorance still outweighs my knowledge. I am plagued by

> too many interests and have difficulty keeping a narrow focus (astrology

> is a banquet, and I cannot talk myself into bringing a brown paper sack

> to this feast). I've been relocating both Tropical and Sidereal Solar

> returns for about 20 years. My methods evolve over time. My eclectics

> are very much results driven. We've been relocating all the planetary

> returns for about 10 years (both T. & S.). This and locational astro

> are my main passions. Life is good.

>

> Warmly, John

> ===========================================

>

> David Monroe wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > <%40>, " Dr. John D. Andre "

> > <DrJDAndre@> wrote: Will your book be from a sidereal point of view?

> > >

> > REPLY: Because the Sidereal market is so thin, I've cast the book

> > primarily within precession-corrected solar return and daily angles

> > charts, hoping to tap into the broad Tropical-oriented market.

> >

> > That said, there is a lot for Sidereal-oriented astrologers to

> > consider in terms of the techniques presented in the book. Some of

> > those who follow the practices of Fagan will find that I break some of

> > his rules and that I don't use many of the chart-types that he

> > explored shortly before his passing. I've also developed new methods

> > that I have not seen anyone talk about in print. In any case the

> > package of charts and methods I advocate have worked well for me over

> > three decades and the simplicity of my approach should help Tropical

> > astrologers see the merits of what Fagan's groundwork offers them.

> >

> > I've not had the opportunity to " talk " with you prior to this. Can you

> > indicate what your practice and approach is? I've found that many

> > Sidereal astrologers fall into two camps; those that slavishly follow

> > Fagan's unfinished explorations as rigid dogma and those that have

> > moved to Joytish/Vedic/Indian methodologies. There seem to be only a

> > few middle ground Siderealists such as our Therese on this list. I am

> > comfortable working in a Sidereal format, but since I don't use signs,

> > rulerships or houses (except I do use houses in natal work) it is of

> > little consequence to me with the focus being on planets and angles

> > and the other approaches I use. Dave

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > __________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de

> > firmas de virus 4287 (20090729) __________

> >

> > ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

> >

> > http://www.eset.com

>

>

> __________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas

de virus 4287 (20090729) __________

>

> ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

>

> http://www.eset.com

>