Guest guest Posted December 18, 2002 Report Share Posted December 18, 2002 In a message dated 12/18/2002 10:58:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes: > >. I'd check your transits. I've noticed that elsewhere on line the > >sweetest people have been combative lately > > mars/venus/neptune all are in aspect these few days. /// wing > *******Mars is in Scorpio by the tropical zodiac. I expected arguments and violence during this time. Well, what's the explanation for all the violence sidereally, as it's still in the constellation Libra? -starman http://www.DrStarman.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2002 Report Share Posted December 18, 2002 Yo... Doc... You seem like an intelligent individual but your question strikes me as being simplistic. Mars being in Scorpio or Libra by itself does not determine whether there is " violence " in this forum. Siderealist's operate within a technical perspective. We don't operate in the context of " What is your Sun sign? " Have you read much about Sidereal? Not Vedic, Sidereal? Have you read anything by Cavender, Bowser or Fannin? The perspective of constellational astrology is fascinating and offers a " different " complexity than seasonal astrology. To many Siderealist's the SVP is an important element in delineation. Solstice points are considered very relative in understanding transitions in cyclical behavior. I (We) look at the power of the planets and the various divisions within our sphere of existence. The Divisions are the various angles. ASC, MC, DEC,IC,VERTEX,EP, Anti-VERTEX, WP, and squares to the EP/WP and VERTEX/Anti-VERTEX. Mars in Libra does not express the passion/diligence of Scorpio but it is representative of a strong-willed intellect. The unfortunate thing between tropicalists and siderealists is the inability to listen. As Game, pointed out in a previous post.... It gets emotional and then confrontational. The perspective of the astrologies are different. To understand Sidereal you need to leave the perspective of Tropical. You may not want to do that but you may never go back if you do. Suggest you do your chart in the sidereal and do a mundoscope/prime vertical chart.... I'm curious to know what your natal chart looks like matched up to your current location. We are complex individuals(humans in general not just Siderealists)... If your Sun is located in the background(house) and your Mercury in on an angle(in a different sign) would you see or recognize the individual in their Sun Sign or in their " active " Mercury? Jivio --- DRStarman2001 wrote: > In a message dated 12/18/2002 10:58:51 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > writes: > > > >. I'd check your transits. I've noticed that > elsewhere on line the > > >sweetest people have been combative lately > > > > mars/venus/neptune all are in aspect these few > days. /// wing > > > > *******Mars is in Scorpio by the tropical zodiac. I > expected arguments and > violence during this time. Well, what's the > explanation for all the violence > sidereally, as it's still in the constellation > Libra? > -starman > http://www.DrStarman.net > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > " 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 December 18, 2002 Report Share Posted December 18, 2002 At 12:11 PM 12/18/02 EST, DRStarman wrote: >*******Mars is in Scorpio by the tropical zodiac. I expected arguments and >violence during this time. Well, what's the explanation for all the violence >sidereally, as it's still in the constellation Libra? >-starman Number one: Sidereal Libra isn't 'peaceful.' Number two, an example of why I switched from the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa to Krishnamurti: Mars is at 17 Libra 18. The natal planets are always strongly influenced by the navamsa (9th harmonic) positions. In the navamsa chart for today Uranus is at 17 Libra 29. Saturn is at 15 Libra, not very far away. Mars is under seige, guys. Venus is out-classed. Also Saturn itself is in the lunar mansion of Mars, which will emphasize the effect. News headline for today: Anti-missile plan OKd by Bush: 2 year plan for defending U.S. Territory. Any anyone out there with planets in or around 17 Libra is feeling the pressure of the navamsa Uranus/Saturn conjunction. This conjunction may be affecting all of natal Libra (the sidereal sign, that is). Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2002 Report Share Posted December 18, 2002 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: Jivio, For starters, you speak of the Vertex as some sort of valid point, of which it is not. Why is this point useful? Have you seen how it is calculated? If so, why is this worth a darn? Then, you start waxing philosophical about Mars in some sign meaning this or that, which becomes an excercise in the vague. Your agrument about the problem with sidereal vs tropical people and thier inability to listen to one another as the reason why so few use sidereal is without much umpf. The reason why so few use sidereal is that it is simply bad and outdated astrology -- as arteficial as the Sun is bright. The notion that signs have some special power to change the meaning of planets that might pass through them is simply hogwash, no matter what zodiac one uses. Rulership schemes are equally silly, and only serve to confuse the neophytes, who must un-learn much to go beyond the beginner level. That's why the Dr. has asked you the rhetorical question about what your planet is " in. " - Ed Kohout > Yo... Doc... > > You seem like an intelligent individual but your > question strikes me as being simplistic. > > Mars being in Scorpio or Libra by itself does not > determine whether there is " violence " in this forum. > > Siderealist's operate within a technical perspective. > We don't operate in the context of " What is your Sun > sign? " > > Have you read much about Sidereal? Not Vedic, > Sidereal? > Have you read anything by Cavender, Bowser or Fannin? > > The perspective of constellational astrology is > fascinating and offers a " different " complexity than > seasonal astrology. > To many Siderealist's the SVP is an important element > in delineation. Solstice points are considered very > relative in understanding transitions in cyclical > behavior. > > I (We) look at the power of the planets and the > various divisions within our sphere of existence. > The Divisions are the various angles. ASC, MC, > DEC,IC,VERTEX,EP, Anti-VERTEX, WP, and squares to the > EP/WP and VERTEX/Anti-VERTEX. > Mars in Libra does not express the passion/diligence > of Scorpio but it is representative of a strong-willed > intellect. > > The unfortunate thing between tropicalists and > siderealists is the inability to listen. As Game, > pointed out in a previous post.... It gets emotional > and then confrontational. > The perspective of the astrologies are different. To > understand Sidereal you need to leave the perspective > of Tropical. You may not want to do that but you may > never go back if you do. > > Suggest you do your chart in the sidereal and do a > mundoscope/prime vertical chart.... I'm curious to > know what your natal chart looks like matched up to > your current location. We are complex > individuals(humans in general not just > Siderealists)... If your Sun is located in the > background(house) and your Mercury in on an angle(in a > different sign) would you see or recognize the > individual in their Sun Sign or in their " active " > Mercury? > > Jivio > > > --- DRStarman2001@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 12/18/2002 10:58:51 AM Eastern > > Standard Time, > > writes: > > > > > >. I'd check your transits. I've noticed that > > elsewhere on line the > > > >sweetest people have been combative lately > > > > > > mars/venus/neptune all are in aspect these few > > days. /// wing > > > > > > > *******Mars is in Scorpio by the tropical zodiac. I > > expected arguments and > > violence during this time. Well, what's the > > explanation for all the violence > > sidereally, as it's still in the constellation > > Libra? > > -starman > > http://www.DrStarman.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2002 Report Share Posted December 18, 2002 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > Endless Ed.... > > Sorry studing the vertex has been useless for you. > It's been that way for some others so u got company. > > What is sad is your grasp of astrology. You're opinion > of signs is rather strange.... Signs are one of the > basic premises of astrology. well ok then.... > > Try re-reading the previous posts... who knows you > might get something out of it... > > Weren't you the one who mentioned Gleadow as someone > to read? A re-visit for you may be helpful. > Don't let the door hit you on the way out... Jivio, The problem with your reasoning is that you constantly attack the person rather than the topic. Such tactics would preclude you from being on even a grade-school debate team, and in the end you prove nothing other than that you don't like me. If you can get past this basic fallacy of reason, you might be able to comprehend the things you don't understand, which would help you go beyond the level you are stuck at. I'm willing to help, though, as you at least have a temprament of someone with self control, unlike Damon and the Wing. Signs did NOT come first, Jivio. They were a development that came millennia after the first eclipse lists, and served to simplify the math, but NOT to reflect a stellar reality. Ken Gillman has a great article on the CURA site about how the 12 signs came to be the 12 months of the year, and that both were based on the observation that 12 new moons happen in a solar year. Studying the history of signs is not the same as proving their validity. Phlebotomy has a rich history, but no one would use it today either. Tell us, why do you think that the Cosmobiologists discarded the signs? - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2002 Report Share Posted December 19, 2002 --- " Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote: > , Juan > Oliver <jivio> > wrote: > > Endless Ed.... > > > > Sorry studing the vertex has been useless for you. > > It's been that way for some others so u got > company. > > > > What is sad is your grasp of astrology. You're > opinion > > of signs is rather strange.... Signs are one of > the > > basic premises of astrology. well ok then.... > > > > Try re-reading the previous posts... who knows you > > might get something out of it... > > > > Weren't you the one who mentioned Gleadow as > someone > > to read? A re-visit for you may be helpful. > > Don't let the door hit you on the way out... > > > Jivio, > > The problem with your reasoning is that you > constantly attack the > person rather than the topic. Such tactics would > preclude you from > being on even a grade-school debate team, and in the > end you prove > nothing other than that you don't like me. If you > can get past this > basic fallacy of reason, you might be able to > comprehend the things > you don't understand, which would help you go beyond > the level you > are stuck at. I'm willing to help, though, as you > at least have a > temprament of someone with self control, unlike > Damon and the Wing. > Ed... Have you observed the propencity you have to engage in ridicule? Your willingness to help may come from the heart but your chrisma lacks warmth. Ya think you could develop an appreciation for the student/teacher relationship? Reflect on my comments below... > Signs did NOT come first, Jivio. I never said that they did... They were a > development that came millennia after the first > >eclipse lists, and served to simplify the > math, but NOT to reflect a stellar reality. I'm sure there were list keepers since the beginning of time. We'll never be rid of list keepers. Signs were not a reflection of a stellar reality? Signs served to simplify math? How did they do that and not insinuate a stellar reality? I don't know if you know what you're talking about. It is very unclear to me what you are attempting to explain. Ken > Gillman has a great > article on the CURA site about how the 12 signs came > to be the 12 > months of the year, and that both were based on the > observation that > 12 new moons happen in a solar year. > Sounds like a rational observation... CURA has a number of good articles. > Studying the history of signs is not the same as > proving their validity. Didn't say that it was..... You make a lot of presumptions and your assertion: If you > can get past this > basic fallacy of reason, you might be able to > comprehend the things > you don't understand, which would help you go beyond > the level you > are stuck at. would be good advice for yourself. > Tell us, why do you think that the Cosmobiologists > discarded the > signs? > > - Ed K > Why would I want to do that? If you would like to share... go right ahead... but then you wrote that you wanted to learn about Sidereal Astrology didn't you?... Jivio > > " 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 December 19, 2002 Report Share Posted December 19, 2002 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > Ed... Have you observed the propencity you have to > engage in ridicule? > Your willingness to help may come from the heart but > your chrisma lacks warmth. Ya think you could develop > an appreciation for the student/teacher relationship? > Reflect on my comments below... No. > > Signs did NOT come first, Jivio. > > I never said that they did... > > > They were a > > development that came millennia after the first > > >eclipse lists, and served to simplify the > > math, but NOT to reflect a stellar reality. > > I'm sure there were list keepers since the beginning > of time. We'll never be rid of list keepers. Thank god, or you would have no ephemerides. > Signs were not a reflection of a stellar reality? No. > Signs served to simplify math? Yes. > How did they do that > and not insinuate a stellar reality? The reality they wanted to express was the spherical nature of the heavens. They thought that the heavens moved on an axis and the Earth stood still. The constellations happened to be handy markers, but not in any way the imeputus for 12 equal divisions. > I don't know if > you know what you're talking about. That is obvious. > It is very unclear > to me what you are attempting to explain. That is because you are more interested in complaining about my personality traits rather than anything else. > You make a lot of presumptions and your assertion: > If you > > can get past this > > basic fallacy of reason, you might be able to > > comprehend the things > > you don't understand, which would help you go beyond > > the level you > > are stuck at. > > would be good advice for yourself. Gee, thanks for giving me my own advice. > > > Tell us, why do you think that the Cosmobiologists > > discarded the signs? > > > > - Ed K > > > Why would I want to do that? Because you are an astrologer. > If you would like to share... go right ahead... > > > but then you wrote that you wanted to learn about > Sidereal Astrology didn't you?... Yes. > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > > to Antares? " ----- Because it's in Ophiuchus. - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2002 Report Share Posted December 19, 2002 In a message dated 12/18/2002 11:13:12 AM Central Standard Time, DRStarman2001 writes: > . Well, what's the explanation for all the violence > sidereally, as it's still in the constellation Libra? > everyone knows that the detriment or fall or disgrace of mars is Libra. and what violence are you talking about? /// wing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2002 Report Share Posted December 19, 2002 In a message dated 12/18/2002 2:57:43 PM Central Standard Time, jivio writes: > Have you read anything by Cavender, Bowser or Fannin? > also try Fagan. Bradley's " taking the kid gloves off astrology. " /// wing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2002 Report Share Posted December 19, 2002 Bradley's " Taking the kid gloves off astrology " is probably the finest and shortest book ever written on the subject of astrology. It's my favorite and a pleasure to read over and over again. I mentioned Cavender, Bowser and Fannin as they are the contempoary writers of the day that I am familiar and associate with. Jivio --- cpwing44 wrote: > In a message dated 12/18/2002 2:57:43 PM Central > Standard Time, > jivio writes: > > > > Have you read anything by Cavender, Bowser or > Fannin? > > > > also try Fagan. Bradley's " taking the kid gloves off > astrology. " /// wing > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > " 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 December 20, 2002 Report Share Posted December 20, 2002 Thankyou Juan, Shamira M - Juan Oliver Friday, December 20, 2002 5:08 AM Re: Digest Number 429 Bradley's " Taking the kid gloves off astrology " is probably the finest and shortest book ever written on the subject of astrology. It's my favorite and a pleasure to read over and over again. I mentioned Cavender, Bowser and Fannin as they are the contempoary writers of the day that I am familiar and associate with. Jivio --- cpwing44 wrote: > In a message dated 12/18/2002 2:57:43 PM Central > Standard Time, > jivio writes: > > > > Have you read anything by Cavender, Bowser or > Fannin? > > > > also try Fagan. Bradley's " taking the kid gloves off > astrology. " /// wing > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > " 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...
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.