Guest guest Posted December 27, 2002 Report Share Posted December 27, 2002 This post is going to be confusing, because I have to use double quotes. What I wrote first, what Ed K wrote, and then what I am replying to in this post. I marked my previous post's comments with T:>> Ed's comments are preceded by > At 07:47 AM 12/23/02 -0000, Ed K. wrote: (T:.. What would be wrong with taking >> all the charts from ADB (admittedly only a few) and for beginning anecdotal >> purposes, checking the bios for everyone with an exalted Mars >square the Moon in 10th in both zodiacs, and then compare the differences or similarities? -------------------- > >I guess as a starting point, yes, it is good, but moon-90-mars is >such a common aspect that this small of a sample is a drop in the >ocean. -------------------- Actully, at least in the Rodden/McD database, there were only a few charts when you narrow the field to specific signs of the zodiac and specific houses. If you keep the orb of the planets within a certain degree orb from the ascendant degree (in all signs), the number of charts shrinks even more. Yes, there are many people with a simple Moon square Mars, but each aspect will have a different meaning depending on its location in the chart. >I do appreciate you listing those charts, don't get me wrong. O.K. we've come to an understanding there! ---------------------- T:>> You can try this exalted planet type of research with any planets. >>Say an exalted Venus in a certain position and physical beauty. Check out >>both zodiacs. Sure, each little experiment may not mean much alone, but >>suppose you took 20 profiles and one zodiac or the other always came up >>with pluses for (as an example) exalted planets? There are many ways to do >>research. ----------------------- >Surely. Why not take if further and check it against those born on >Tuesdays versus Mondays, for instance, or make sure that if moon is >in 10th, the Sun has to be under the Earth, or some other such arcane >rule? You are being facetious. With astrology and signs of the zodiac we have to assume that there is a divine plan, an order, somewhere underneath it all. Otherwise none of it has any meaning at all. The planetary exaltations aren't 'some arcane rule.' They're very traditional. Either they have meaning or they don't, and it's a fairly simple matter to test them out. >My whole point about the exaltations is that they were never intended >to denote some universal magical system of planetary placements. If >one looks at the recently discovered (by Fagan, no less) origin of >the exaltataions, I don't necessariLy agree that Fagan got it right re: the exaltations. Again, we're getting into theory here. Why not simply test horoscopes to see if the exaltations of the planets have specific meanings. A very easy-to-do test is to compare charts of people with prominent exalted planets (say, in the 10th house) with those with planets in their falls in the same houss. See if (statistically if you wish) the exalted planets have more 'fame and position' in life. >Saturn's exaltation degree is based upon the heliacal rising of Saturn in 786 >BC. I don't see how this is relevant in my life. It's not relevant to my life either, which is why I'm not accepting Fagan's theory at this time. There is a perfect order to the exaltations (I worked them out) and it has nothing to do with heliacal risings. All the same I want to see the exaltations demonstrated in actual horoscopes or I don't accept them. I don't worship at the feet of the founders of the western sidereal system. Or at the feet of the so-called Indian sages either. >The State of California has Moon opposite it's exaltation degree. >This should mean that no one would ever want to move there, or travel >there, or ship anything there by water, right?? Not necessarily. It would depend on where that Moon was in the horoscope and what its dispositor was doing. I don't believe we have timed to the hour charts for states and cities. If you have an exact timed chart for California, please post it. I'd love to see the data. (And supposing that California is eventually inundated by the ocean (Moon) due to massive earthquakes? There you would have your Moon in its fall.) >Oy, are you saying that the natures of JU and SA are not like the >above? I believe their natures can be modified by the signs they are in, their positions in the horoscope (in relation to the ascendant) and their aspects. Every planet has different ways it can manifest. Jupiter can be controlled and constructive or 'all over the place' and overly optimistic. Juptiter is the true drug lord, I believe, rather than Neptune. >My point is that Jupiter rising is a favorable element regardless of >sign or zodiac, and I don't have to go digging through a bunch of >charts to know such a basic tenant with universally concensus is >relevant. Oh, but you do if you want to demonstrate an astrological truth to someone. You can't cop out of this one. Otherwise, why do any research at all in any subject? It was once the universal consensus that the earth was flat and that ships could fall off the edge if they sailed out too far into the ocean. A few brave souls proved that it was an almost universally accepted non-truth. >The same with Saturn. You'd be hard pressed to find a >text in astrology (from a relevant author) who would disagree. You mean all those astrological books full of half truths and non-truths unsupported by any research whatsoever? -------------------- T:>>If you wanted to give some astrological support for midpoints, >you'd have to select study categories and then use a midpoint control group. -------------------- >Others already have. Munkasey is my favorite. Yes, good guy, but I haven't kept up on what he is doing. ------------------------------- T: >>If you're looking at the zodiac, all you need to do is compare the two >zodiacs using the same research methods. The two zodiacs control each other. >NO. The two zodiacs are not the only choices we have... That doesn't matter. It's perfectly all right (research wise) to begin with only two comparison points. Practically every day in the newspaper there is a new report on a research project comparing placebos with some drug or other. The research doesn't have to deal with all the other possible medical helps for a certain illness. Only one drug is tested at a time. With astrology we have (perhaps) a real zodiac and a placebo. Or maybe we have two placebos. Whatever...it's easy to run tests. ---------------------- T: >> It sounds to me, Ed, as if you want to look at everything all at >once (as for example all the different ways you might see a successful >politician in a horoscope.) We'd be drowned in details at the very onset. We have >to start small and work up from there. --------------------- >That may be correct, but that dosen't preclude you or I from seeing >what else is in aspect to a Moon-90-Mars, does it? You can look at anything you like, but you don't have to include it all in a research project. A consulting astrologer, however, does have to try to see the entire picture. Consulting astrologers make the worst researchers of all. No head for specific details. Lots of forest, but no trees. Terese 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.