RE: Digest Number 425

[Guest guest]

shamira: i have used the Oktopus (eight house system running CLOCKWISE with

the ascendant being the midpoint of house 1, zenith being midpoint of house

3. by extrapolating the midpoints you get the midpoints of the other houses

as well. this is covered in cyril fagan's ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS chapter XIX.

good luck finding others who might be using this system which is quietly

logical and elegant. /// chris wing in austin tx

 

Chris! I have been at the look out for somebody to help me delineate the

midpoints particularly the housecusps beside the Ascendant and the MC.

Is Cyril Fagan's book " Astrological Origins " still available? I am using

the Meridian Housesystem, where Eastpoint is first House and the Ascendant

is variable:occupying House 11 or 12, or I, 2 or sometimes 3. This I

learned in the technic of Uranian Astrology;a quite interesting addition

delineating the Ascendant's influence in the person's chart.

Have a happy Christmass time and studeous succesful New Year! Anny

 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

 

http://help./help/us/groups/files

 

Regards,

 

jan61108 <jan61108

 

solunars writes:

> If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the Tropicalists are rarely

right!

> The Zodiac of Egypt and Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the

> fixed-stars) and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star Aldebaran (15TAU)

> and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this taking place in the Taurian Age.

> The Tropical Zodiac was INVENTED by the Greeks ...

 

Robert Powell in his book " Hermetic Astrology " calls the ancients'

understanding of the twelve phases of the sun's rise and fall annually the

" Steps of the Sun " , having to do with the increase and decrease of light,

symbolized by the various ways of understanding the interaction of the

elements of warmth and moisture through the year. This 12-fold division of

the year is what we currently call tropical astrology, and there's no reason

to believe it hasn't always existed, since the most ancient astronomical

devices mark the solstices and equinoxes. The secret of keeping an accurate

calendar was lost and everything was confused by the fifth century B.C., as

can be seen in in how the Romans were unable to keep the calendar they

inherited from Egypt accurate, forcing Julius Caesar to reform it a few

centuries later. So the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were confused then,

and

the first month after the vernal equinox was named Aries for the stars that

with there then, and so on. In fact, the constellation Aries is a tiny and

insignificant one, and may only have been recognized as a separate

constellation when the vernal equinox began taking place there instead of in

the easily recognizable Taurus and the Pleiades; we know that what we now

call the constellation Libra was only created at that time from what had

previously been the claws of the scorpion.

 

It's quite a job to untangle them now, but I think nothing will be

achieved by arguing that the course of the sun during the year is

meaningless

and only 12 groups of stars have significance. There are and were always two

different systems, and this was once known, as can be seen in the great

research of Santillana in " Hamlets Mill " and in the ancient Indian tradition

of the Yugas, which came down to us as the ages of Gold, Silver etc. in

Hesiod.

-starman

http://www.DrStarman.net