Guest guest Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Chiria has added Sagittarius to her notebook on the Lost Zodiac site. Only three more signs to go! For those of us who still see value in zodiac signs, it's important to remember that it's often the sub-divisions of signs that tell much of the story. Without a base sign there would be no sign divisions such as the navamsa in Jyotish, the terms/bounds in western astrology or the dwads in both systems. Although skilled astrologers easily see the effects of signs, ultimately it may be the math of sub-divisions that opens the window to proof of the existence of signs of the zodiac. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Therese, I had bookmarked the Lost Zodiac but had forgotten it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I did briefly scan it, and the relatively concise statements seem to be appropriate. I'll have to check this out more deeply. Chiria's short observations appear to be oriented a bit differently than other Sidereal Sign interpretations that I've read. Thanks for calling this effort to our attention. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 At 06:41 PM 11/14/2009 +0000, Dave Monroe wrote: >Therese, I had bookmarked the Lost Zodiac but had forgotten it. Thanks for >bringing it to my attention. I did briefly scan it, and the relatively >concise statements seem to be appropriate. I'll have to check this out >more deeply. Chiria's short observations appear to be oriented a bit >differently than other Sidereal Sign interpretations that I've >read. Thanks for calling this effort to our attention. ---- Thanks for your reply, Dave. I forgot to post the link, so here it is: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm I've known Chiria since the 70s, though now she lives in a state far removed from mine. She's a very astute observer of human nature (Moon in sidereal Taurus, Sun/Mercury in Virgo, Venus in Libra--all strong benefic positions), and bases most or all of what she says on her personal observation. She's also writes poetry (strong benefic Moon). Chiria is also very " feminine " in that she greatly values family, friends, mutual exchange with others and being as helpful as possible to anyone who enters her life. This is how the femininity (feminine signs, Taurus Moon and well positioned Venus) in her birth chart operates. As you know, I've been trying to isolate what overall sign traits there might be. So far the most significant finding seems to be what I'd call " basic sign energies. " That is, energies that have already been observed in the tropical community, but are reversed (and more accurate) in the sidereal to fit gender behavior. (Articles on this are on the LZ site.) There are also traits related to ruling and exalted planets which Chiria sometimes discusses. So we have the very masculine trigon of Aries-Leo-Sag, the feminine Taurus and Cancer trigons, and the more neutral or androgynous Gemini trigon. (Internally motivated, but operating from feeling rather than masculine type logic.) It's interesting that Valens calls this trigon masculine, but also " effeminate " (the term used by the translators). So these traits were observed way back in Hellenistic times. Anyone with many personal planets in one polarity or the other will be motivated from within (masculine) or focused on the external and interaction with others (feminine). These two types of people will be drawn to appropriate activities to suit their basic mode of functioning. Often, however, there will be a balanced combination in the birth chart, so it will be difficult to isolate much of anything. But I believe it's an exercise in futility to attempt to place deep psychological traits on the signs rather than the planets. It is possible to get mathematical results when considering a sub chart--for example, the navamsa. This chart will emphasize particular planets which correlate with a person's profession. So for athletes who apparently don't have a significant natal Mars, a navamsa Mars may fall at the natal zenith or conjoin the navamsa ascendant. There will *always* be an appropriate planetary as well as sign emphasis in the navamsa. This is an example of why I know that signs exist. They do work for purposes of measurement in harmonics at least. Chiria seems to have hit the basic focus of the signs she's discussed, so I seriously consider what she says. Whether you happen to like your spirituality in church rituals (more Sagittarian) or as a more free thinking member of Wicca dancing under the moonlight (more Piscean) isn't saying a whole lot about your emotional disposition and soul development, but these are interesting observations nonetheless. With Sagittarius we have Jupiter-structure; with Pisces we have Neptune and exalted Venus added to a more free-flowing feminine type of energy. If astute observers like Chiria are in a room full of people, they'd be able to pick out those who strongly exhibit individual zodiac signs. This is because most sign traits deal with specific observable energies and speech patterns. But how would you ever be able to place these in categories that could be tested??? It would have to be via video and audio where an astrologer could say, " Oh, that person is SOOO Aquarian! " But, Dave, I am very bothered by the tropical signs because they simply don't reflect either observed gender differences or attributes of their supposed ruling planets. That's a big problem right there. Perhaps any measurable core of astrology will be beyond our reach for centuries to come. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Perhaps one could benefit from reading what skeptics say. I have a (somewhat old) book Astrology true or false? which says there is no correlation for tropical sun sign astrology. While it's obviously somewhat biased in attitude I don't think there is deliberate falsification of data since a few questions are left open in other topics, and besides Gauquelin also found the same thing about the tropical sun-signs which he also researched. , Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > But, Dave, I am very bothered by the tropical signs because they simply > don't reflect either observed gender differences or attributes of their > supposed ruling planets. That's a big problem right there. > > Perhaps any measurable core of astrology will be beyond our reach for > centuries to come. > > Therese > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 At 06:54 PM 11/16/2009 +0000, cjjohans wrote: >Perhaps one could benefit from reading what skeptics say. I have a >(somewhat old) book Astrology true or false? which says there is no >correlation for tropical sun sign astrology. While it's obviously somewhat >biased in attitude I don't think there is deliberate falsification of data >since a few questions are left open in other topics, and besides Gauquelin >also found the same thing about the tropical sun-signs which he also >researched. Hi... It's true that signs have been debunked in the past, most notably by Geoffrey Dean in RECENT ADVANCES IN NATAL ASTROLOGY (1977). It's true that we're not likely to get results for signs if we simply total Sun positions in signs and try to relate them to specific traits. But there are different ways that signs can be studied, and I am getting results along some of these pathways. I'm trying to find ways to set down results in a way that others can duplicate who are interested in the study of zodiac signs. It's doubtful that we'll ever find absolute proof for signs as a whole, but we can find evidence that they exist. Stay tuned, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2009 Report Share Posted November 17, 2009 Personally I don't have a problem with signs (in fact I don't believe sidereal astrology is star-based at all, so confusion about the zodiac was all the easier). I was just saying that few astrologers do any significant empirical research and are mostly going by tradition, so the sidereal sign interpretations are not necessarily very different from the tropical (except maybe some like Taurus that for some maybe for tropicalists unknown reason has become " stubborn " , " hard-headed " despite being ruled by Venus). , Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 06:54 PM 11/16/2009 +0000, cjjohans wrote: > >Perhaps one could benefit from reading what skeptics say. I have a > >(somewhat old) book Astrology true or false? which says there is no > >correlation for tropical sun sign astrology. While it's obviously somewhat > >biased in attitude I don't think there is deliberate falsification of data > >since a few questions are left open in other topics, and besides Gauquelin > >also found the same thing about the tropical sun-signs which he also > >researched. > > Hi... > > It's true that signs have been debunked in the past, most notably by > Geoffrey Dean in RECENT ADVANCES IN NATAL ASTROLOGY (1977). It's true that > we're not likely to get results for signs if we simply total Sun positions > in signs and try to relate them to specific traits. > > But there are different ways that signs can be studied, and I am getting > results along some of these pathways. I'm trying to find ways to set down > results in a way that others can duplicate who are interested in the study > of zodiac signs. It's doubtful that we'll ever find absolute proof for > signs as a whole, but we can find evidence that they exist. > > Stay tuned, > Therese > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 At 09:30 PM 11/17/2009 +0000, ccjohans wrote: >Personally I don't have a problem with signs (in fact I don't believe >sidereal astrology is star-based at all, so confusion about the zodiac was >all the easier). I was just saying that few astrologers do any significant >empirical research and are mostly going by tradition... This is very true. Astrologers aren't into empirical testing. Much of the tropical literature is simply expansion on a few early books. >...except maybe some like Taurus that for some maybe for tropicalists >unknown reason has become " stubborn " , " hard-headed " despite being ruled by >Venus). It's rather a mystery that Tropical astrologers don't notice that the signs don't match the ruling planets. Maybe they don't even care. Taurus is a case in point. Tropical astrologers are really seeing sidereal Mars-ruled Aries but still call the sign Taurus, ruled by Venus. Therese > , Therese Hamilton <eastwest >wrote: > > > > At 06:54 PM 11/16/2009 +0000, cjjohans wrote: > > >Perhaps one could benefit from reading what skeptics say. I have a > > >(somewhat old) book Astrology true or false? which says there is no > > >correlation for tropical sun sign astrology. While it's obviously > somewhat > > >biased in attitude I don't think there is deliberate falsification of > data > > >since a few questions are left open in other topics, and besides > Gauquelin > > >also found the same thing about the tropical sun-signs which he also > > >researched. > > > > Hi... > > > > It's true that signs have been debunked in the past, most notably by > > Geoffrey Dean in RECENT ADVANCES IN NATAL ASTROLOGY (1977). It's true that > > we're not likely to get results for signs if we simply total Sun positions > > in signs and try to relate them to specific traits. > > > > But there are different ways that signs can be studied, and I am getting > > results along some of these pathways. I'm trying to find ways to set down > > results in a way that others can duplicate who are interested in the study > > of zodiac signs. It's doubtful that we'll ever find absolute proof for > > signs as a whole, but we can find evidence that they exist. > > > > Stay tuned, > > Therese > > > > > > >--- > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > >Shortcut URL to this page: >/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 09:30 PM 11/17/2009 +0000, ccjohans wrote: > >Personally I don't have a problem with signs (in fact I don't believe > >sidereal astrology is star-based at all, so confusion about the zodiac was > >all the easier). I was just saying that few astrologers do any significant > >empirical research and are mostly going by tradition... > > This is very true. Astrologers aren't into empirical testing. Much of the > tropical literature is simply expansion on a few early books. > > >...except maybe some like Taurus that for some maybe for tropicalists > >unknown reason has become " stubborn " , " hard-headed " despite being ruled by > >Venus). > > It's rather a mystery that Tropical astrologers don't notice that the signs > don't match the ruling planets. Maybe they don't even care. Taurus is a > case in point. Tropical astrologers are really seeing sidereal Mars-ruled > Aries but still call the sign Taurus, ruled by Venus. > > Therese > > I don't believe there is much maliciousness, more often than not the opinions are based on the own chart. However in the case of Venus and Mercury the Sun dispositor may well be in an adjacent sign, and for others maybe at least in the same or similar trigon. Then the astrologer may also be of an extrovert type and not have a strong capacity for true introspection. (And some maybe also want to believe that they are different especially with the malefics.) 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.