Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 05:09 AM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > >My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect. > > This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, or there > is no zodiac at all. Why present a false dilemma? That's like saying there is only one good religion, or only one good car manufacturer, or only one good sex. Zodiacs are all 12-fold becuase of the simple observation that 12 lunations happen in about a year -- NOT because 13 sidereal lunar returns happen in about a year. Here's a great article on that fact: http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html Sidereal simply does not take sun/earth nodes into account, and Tropical does not take the stellar matrix into account. Both are useful, and, I do surely appreciate all of the folks on this list who helped me see the light with Sidereal. There is no way merge both into one; both must be consulted. They both cannot work. The question is whether the > planets do or don't precess for astrological purposes. Here's an example: > > Take the USA chart for July 4, 1776 and the chart for the foundation of > Baghdad. > > The two sidereal charts show that Mars is only one minute (yes, one minute) > different in longitude in the two charts. And this Mars opposes the > ascendant of the Baghdad chart. So the USA makes war on Baghdad just as > transiting Saturn conjoins this Mars. No question of the symbolism here. Ahh, yes, but how many other cities has the USA bombed into submission?? Berlin, Saigon, Serajavo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Kabul... We have to look at all the evidence. > > The Tropical Baghadad chart has Venus at 2 Cancer. Would anyone debate that > Venus stands for peace? Yes! Venus was a warring deity to the Nineveh crowd millennia ago. And what do we see in the USA chart?! Venus is at 2 > Cancer and Jupiter at 5 Cancer. A nice conjunction of peaceful planets!! So, why has the USA not ever been at peace? > The opposing Mars in the Baghdad tropical chart is at 7 Gemini. Well, I > suppose you could make a weak case for the USA Uranus being in 9 Gemini. > But where are the major mutual transits in the two charts setting off the > war?? You are comparing two different charts. One is a chart for a political entity, and the other is a chart for the boundary stone of a city. The political entity that laid that boundary stone is long gone. Compare the USA President chart to the Saddamma July 17, 1968 chart, and you have apples and apples. The boundary stone of Washington DC was laid on April 15, 1791, at about 15:50 LMT. > > The problem with using the USA chart alone is that not enough time has > passed since 1776 to make the differences in transits clear. That's why the > very old chart of Baghdad is so valuable for zodiac research. And I would > suggest that a few other ancient accurately timed mundane charts would go a > long way to settle the precession question--if the transits during key > events were compared to the Trop/Sid charts. The 1776 chart has seen more than three degrees of precession, which should be quite enough. > > >The sun's cycle is pretty important, and the sidereal zodiac does not > >take it into consideration; planetary and stellar declinations are > >dependent upon the trop zod. > > I don't consider any of this relevant. The question is precession vs. > non-precession. It's that simple. Longitudes of planets are not dependent > upon declination, Two different planes of measure; one is the equator, the other the eciptic. except as astrononmers are accustomed to measure > positions and and convert them today. As I recall, this entire question of > solar cycle and astronomical measurement has already been discussed on this > board, so I don't think we need to go into it again. > > >My whole point all along is that we are being offered a false dilemma > >by those who insist we must choose between one zodiac or another. > >Both have their merits. > > I challenge you to show us what merit the Tropical zodiac has for timing of > current events in a few more ancient accurately timed mundane charts. Very simple. Put up the 9-11 chart to the Presidential chart, and see the fur fly! > >And, furthermore, it is always good to know when certian fixed > >stars " go cardinal. " > > I would agree that when the spring/autumn equinox points reach various > stars that they should certainly be significant. I'm working on research > relating to that now. BUT...that says nothing about a zodiac. !! It's simply > related to the precessional cycle against the backdrop of stars. Cardinal points are sensitive becuase they are products of Earth's rotation and solar cycle! This is indeed the very definition of the Tropical zodiac, and anything that goes cardinal is conjunct the sun/earth node. Nodes are valid points, as far as I know! > > (And what happens if there is even a very small axis shift, as some > predict? Where is the Tropical zodiac then, if suddenly the equinoxes shift > a few degrees from their current positions? Yes, I know. The idea of an > axis shift is pretty far out there.) We might as well ask what if aliens come to town and blow up Mars. Of course, the best validation of the Trop Zod is the fact that a gazillion astrologers have used it successfully over and over and over again for centuries. The " sidereal " is the relative newcomer, and as such needs to be tested more thoroughly. Love and Pleiades, Ed K > > Right now, two stars in Auriga are doing just > >that. Some reputable astrologers have suggested that the four stars > >in Auriga are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Coinkidink? > > Very interesting!! Is Armageddon almost here? I wouldn't be at all surprised. > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect. > > This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, or there > is no zodiac at all. It depends on whose logic we are talking about - logically it makes sense to me that it is useful to consult both the sidereal and the tropical charts....you have a right to your opinion and I see no point in trying to change it - I also have a right to mine... Shamira M - Ed Kohout Saturday, April 19, 2003 9:06 AM Re: Sidereal/Tropical Zodiacs , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 05:09 AM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > >My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect. > > This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, or there > is no zodiac at all. Why present a false dilemma? That's like saying there is only one good religion, or only one good car manufacturer, or only one good sex. Zodiacs are all 12-fold becuase of the simple observation that 12 lunations happen in about a year -- NOT because 13 sidereal lunar returns happen in about a year. Here's a great article on that fact: http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html Sidereal simply does not take sun/earth nodes into account, and Tropical does not take the stellar matrix into account. Both are useful, and, I do surely appreciate all of the folks on this list who helped me see the light with Sidereal. There is no way merge both into one; both must be consulted. They both cannot work. The question is whether the > planets do or don't precess for astrological purposes. Here's an example: > > Take the USA chart for July 4, 1776 and the chart for the foundation of > Baghdad. > > The two sidereal charts show that Mars is only one minute (yes, one minute) > different in longitude in the two charts. And this Mars opposes the > ascendant of the Baghdad chart. So the USA makes war on Baghdad just as > transiting Saturn conjoins this Mars. No question of the symbolism here. Ahh, yes, but how many other cities has the USA bombed into submission?? Berlin, Saigon, Serajavo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Kabul... We have to look at all the evidence. > > The Tropical Baghadad chart has Venus at 2 Cancer. Would anyone debate that > Venus stands for peace? Yes! Venus was a warring deity to the Nineveh crowd millennia ago. And what do we see in the USA chart?! Venus is at 2 > Cancer and Jupiter at 5 Cancer. A nice conjunction of peaceful planets!! So, why has the USA not ever been at peace? > The opposing Mars in the Baghdad tropical chart is at 7 Gemini. Well, I > suppose you could make a weak case for the USA Uranus being in 9 Gemini. > But where are the major mutual transits in the two charts setting off the > war?? You are comparing two different charts. One is a chart for a political entity, and the other is a chart for the boundary stone of a city. The political entity that laid that boundary stone is long gone. Compare the USA President chart to the Saddamma July 17, 1968 chart, and you have apples and apples. The boundary stone of Washington DC was laid on April 15, 1791, at about 15:50 LMT. > > The problem with using the USA chart alone is that not enough time has > passed since 1776 to make the differences in transits clear. That's why the > very old chart of Baghdad is so valuable for zodiac research. And I would > suggest that a few other ancient accurately timed mundane charts would go a > long way to settle the precession question--if the transits during key > events were compared to the Trop/Sid charts. The 1776 chart has seen more than three degrees of precession, which should be quite enough. > > >The sun's cycle is pretty important, and the sidereal zodiac does not > >take it into consideration; planetary and stellar declinations are > >dependent upon the trop zod. > > I don't consider any of this relevant. The question is precession vs. > non-precession. It's that simple. Longitudes of planets are not dependent > upon declination, Two different planes of measure; one is the equator, the other the eciptic. except as astrononmers are accustomed to measure > positions and and convert them today. As I recall, this entire question of > solar cycle and astronomical measurement has already been discussed on this > board, so I don't think we need to go into it again. > > >My whole point all along is that we are being offered a false dilemma > >by those who insist we must choose between one zodiac or another. > >Both have their merits. > > I challenge you to show us what merit the Tropical zodiac has for timing of > current events in a few more ancient accurately timed mundane charts. Very simple. Put up the 9-11 chart to the Presidential chart, and see the fur fly! > >And, furthermore, it is always good to know when certian fixed > >stars " go cardinal. " > > I would agree that when the spring/autumn equinox points reach various > stars that they should certainly be significant. I'm working on research > relating to that now. BUT...that says nothing about a zodiac. !! It's simply > related to the precessional cycle against the backdrop of stars. Cardinal points are sensitive becuase they are products of Earth's rotation and solar cycle! This is indeed the very definition of the Tropical zodiac, and anything that goes cardinal is conjunct the sun/earth node. Nodes are valid points, as far as I know! > > (And what happens if there is even a very small axis shift, as some > predict? Where is the Tropical zodiac then, if suddenly the equinoxes shift > a few degrees from their current positions? Yes, I know. The idea of an > axis shift is pretty far out there.) We might as well ask what if aliens come to town and blow up Mars. Of course, the best validation of the Trop Zod is the fact that a gazillion astrologers have used it successfully over and over and over again for centuries. The " sidereal " is the relative newcomer, and as such needs to be tested more thoroughly. Love and Pleiades, Ed K > > Right now, two stars in Auriga are doing just > >that. Some reputable astrologers have suggested that the four stars > >in Auriga are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Coinkidink? > > Very interesting!! Is Armageddon almost here? I wouldn't be at all surprised. > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Hi, Theresa I have 33 dates and times for the USA...including my own. Which of the 14 times for July 4 is your darling of the moment? R. Therese Hamilton wrote: > The problem with using the USA chart alone is that not enough time has > passed since 1776 to make the differences in transits clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 At 11:36 PM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >Why present a false dilemma? That's like saying there is only one >good religion, or only one good car manufacturer, or only one good >sex. Zodiacs are all 12-fold becuase of the simple observation that >12 lunations happen in about a year -- NOT because 13 sidereal lunar >returns happen in about a year. Ed, did anyone ever tell you that you should have been a lawyer?? You are skittling away from the issue here. The issue is a simple precession/non-precession one. Where are the planets...really?? Do they precess over time or don't they for astrological purposes?? >Here's a great article on that fact {12 fold zodiac]: > >http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html 'Twelve Gods and Seven Planets' by Ken Gilman on rulerships. Looks like a really good article for everyone to have. Have plenty of paper in your printer. It's 30 pages long. Yes, it will be fun to read. The issue isn't a zodiacal one, actually. As I said, it's about precession. Once the precession debate is settled, only then can we tackle the zodiac question. >Sidereal simply does not take sun/earth nodes into account, and >Tropical does not take the stellar matrix into account. Both are >useful, and, I do surely appreciate all of the folks on this list who >helped me see the light with Sidereal. There is no way merge both >into one; both must be consulted. Same avoidance of the main issue it seems to me. There is only one issue as I see it, and that's precession/non-precession. You can use terms like 'stellar matrix' and sun/earth/nodes/rotation/cardinal points, etc., but they only serve to confuse the fundamental issue. >Ahh, yes, but how many other cities has the USA bombed into >submission?? Berlin, Saigon, Serajavo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, >Kabul... We have to look at all the evidence. That's why I invited you to submit other accurate mundane charts with events, Ed. You're the expert in the mundane area. >Yes! Venus was a warring deity to the Nineveh crowd millennia ago. So shall we remove peace and love from Venus and make it another war god? Return to Nineveh perhaps? >So, why has the USA not ever been at peace? I can't say unless we have a completely valid USA chart to check the position of Mars in relation to the angles. If Tropical astrology is so successful, why don't astrologers agree on a timed chart for July 4, 1776? It's all rather nebulous, isn't it? >You are comparing two different charts. One is a chart for a >political entity, and the other is a chart for the boundary stone of >a city. The political entity that laid that boundary stone is long >gone. Compare the USA President chart to the Saddamma July 17, 1968 >chart, and you have apples and apples. Hmmm...I believe you are the one who said that sidereal was better a few posts back. Unless EdK is two or three different people posting as one...which I'm beginning to wonder about. >The 1776 chart has seen more than three degrees of precession, which >should be quite enough. Has anyone compared event transits in both zodiacs to the 1776 chart? Actually, unless you use very tight transit orbs, (and my experience shows that transits aren't always that exact), you can probably make both charts work fairly well. >Very simple. Put up the 9-11 chart to the Presidential chart, and >see the fur fly! Please post the data for these two events. But why should the presidential chart be any more important than other charts that astrologers argue about for the USA? (I believe that Ken Bowser uses the presidential chart, if you mean the inauguration of George Washington.) >Cardinal points are sensitive because they are products of Earth's >rotation and solar cycle! This is indeed the very definition of the >Tropical zodiac, and anything that goes cardinal is conjunct the >sun/earth node. Nodes are valid points, as far as I know! But this still says nothing about there being a zodiac based on the rotation/solar cycle. I don't disagree that what are called the 'cardinal points' are very important in astrology. But they do not have to mark sign ingresses. They don't have to have anything at all to do with 'signs.' But their position among the stars--yes, that should be very important. >Of course, the best validation of the Trop Zod is the fact that a >gazillion astrologers have used it successfully over and over and >over again for centuries. And that's why Tropical astrologers still cannot agree on a timed chart for July 4, 1776? The " sidereal " is the relative newcomer, >and as such needs to be tested more thoroughly. In India it's been around as long as the Tropical system in the west. Dr. Raman, the dean of Indian astrologers, is on record for numerous accurate political predictions. They're all in old issues of his magazine going back to pre WWII. Everyone please see Dale Huckbey's article on the C.U.R.A site on the 'success' of Tropical astrology. http://cura.free.fr/xxv/25hucke.html It's ever so much easier to argue then to cooperate in a real research project, isn't it? (Sigh....) Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 At 05:00 PM 4/18/03 -0700, Richard wrote: > >Hi, Theresa > >I have 33 dates and times for the USA...including my own. Which of the 14 times for July 4 >is your darling of the moment? I don't have one. That's my point. Though I would expect a true chart for the USA would have to have Jupiter aspecting the ascendant because we're big and rich and (now) domineering. And we're a country of cars, cars and more cars. Mercury and/or Gemini maybe. I like the afternoon times best. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Ed, There are various reasons why the number 12 rules over astrology. That there are 'about' 12 full moons in a year is not one of them. The number 13 full moons in a year is found strongly in cave art, which precedes all other representations. R. Ed Kohout wrote: > , Therese Hamilton > <eastwest@s...> wrote: > > At 05:09 AM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > > > >My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect. > > > > This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, > or there > > is no zodiac at all. > > Why present a false dilemma? That's like saying there is only one > good religion, or only one good car manufacturer, or only one good > sex. Zodiacs are all 12-fold becuase of the simple observation that > 12 lunations happen in about a year -- NOT because 13 sidereal lunar > returns happen in about a year. > > Here's a great article on that fact: > > http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html > > Sidereal simply does not take sun/earth nodes into account, and > Tropical does not take the stellar matrix into account. Both are > useful, and, I do surely appreciate all of the folks on this list who > helped me see the light with Sidereal. There is no way merge both > into one; both must be consulted. > > They both cannot work. The question is whether the > > planets do or don't precess for astrological purposes. Here's an > example: > > > > Take the USA chart for July 4, 1776 and the chart for the > foundation of > > Baghdad. > > > > The two sidereal charts show that Mars is only one minute (yes, one > minute) > > different in longitude in the two charts. And this Mars opposes the > > ascendant of the Baghdad chart. So the USA makes war on Baghdad > just as > > transiting Saturn conjoins this Mars. No question of the symbolism > here. > > Ahh, yes, but how many other cities has the USA bombed into > submission?? Berlin, Saigon, Serajavo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, > Kabul... We have to look at all the evidence. > > > > > The Tropical Baghadad chart has Venus at 2 Cancer. Would anyone > debate that > > Venus stands for peace? > > Yes! Venus was a warring deity to the Nineveh crowd millennia ago. > > And what do we see in the USA chart?! Venus is at 2 > > Cancer and Jupiter at 5 Cancer. A nice conjunction of peaceful > planets!! > > So, why has the USA not ever been at peace? > > > The opposing Mars in the Baghdad tropical chart is at 7 Gemini. > Well, I > > suppose you could make a weak case for the USA Uranus being in 9 > Gemini. > > But where are the major mutual transits in the two charts setting > off the > > war?? > > You are comparing two different charts. One is a chart for a > political entity, and the other is a chart for the boundary stone of > a city. The political entity that laid that boundary stone is long > gone. Compare the USA President chart to the Saddamma July 17, 1968 > chart, and you have apples and apples. > > The boundary stone of Washington DC was laid on April 15, 1791, at > about 15:50 LMT. > > > > > The problem with using the USA chart alone is that not enough time > has > > passed since 1776 to make the differences in transits clear. That's > why the > > very old chart of Baghdad is so valuable for zodiac research. And I > would > > suggest that a few other ancient accurately timed mundane charts > would go a > > long way to settle the precession question--if the transits during > key > > events were compared to the Trop/Sid charts. > > The 1776 chart has seen more than three degrees of precession, which > should be quite enough. > > > > > >The sun's cycle is pretty important, and the sidereal zodiac does > not > > >take it into consideration; planetary and stellar declinations are > > >dependent upon the trop zod. > > > > I don't consider any of this relevant. The question is precession > vs. > > non-precession. It's that simple. Longitudes of planets are not > dependent > > upon declination, > > Two different planes of measure; one is the equator, the other the > eciptic. > > except as astrononmers are accustomed to measure > > positions and and convert them today. As I recall, this entire > question of > > solar cycle and astronomical measurement has already been discussed > on this > > board, so I don't think we need to go into it again. > > > > >My whole point all along is that we are being offered a false > dilemma > > >by those who insist we must choose between one zodiac or another. > > >Both have their merits. > > > > I challenge you to show us what merit the Tropical zodiac has for > timing of > > current events in a few more ancient accurately timed mundane > charts. > > Very simple. Put up the 9-11 chart to the Presidential chart, and > see the fur fly! > > > >And, furthermore, it is always good to know when certian fixed > > >stars " go cardinal. " > > > > I would agree that when the spring/autumn equinox points reach > various > > stars that they should certainly be significant. I'm working on > research > > relating to that now. BUT...that says nothing about a zodiac. > > !! > > It's simply > > related to the precessional cycle against the backdrop of stars. > > Cardinal points are sensitive becuase they are products of Earth's > rotation and solar cycle! This is indeed the very definition of the > Tropical zodiac, and anything that goes cardinal is conjunct the > sun/earth node. Nodes are valid points, as far as I know! > > > > > (And what happens if there is even a very small axis shift, as some > > predict? Where is the Tropical zodiac then, if suddenly the > equinoxes shift > > a few degrees from their current positions? Yes, I know. The idea > of an > > axis shift is pretty far out there.) > > We might as well ask what if aliens come to town and blow up Mars. > > Of course, the best validation of the Trop Zod is the fact that a > gazillion astrologers have used it successfully over and over and > over again for centuries. The " sidereal " is the relative newcomer, > and as such needs to be tested more thoroughly. > > Love and Pleiades, > Ed K > > > > > Right now, two stars in Auriga are doing just > > >that. Some reputable astrologers have suggested that the four > stars > > >in Auriga are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Coinkidink? > > > > Very interesting!! Is Armageddon almost here? I wouldn't be at all > surprised. > > > > 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 April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Theresa, Logicality is the sine qua non of Science where Mercury tells Moon what to do. But in Astrology Moon tells Mercury what to do. Logicality is for us, however, an excellent handmaiden. At the feast of astrologers, if she promises to mind her manners we allow her to enter through the back door after everyone else is seated. R. Therese Hamilton wrote: > At 05:09 AM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > >My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect. > > This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, or there > is no zodiac at all. They both cannot work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Howdy. In a message dated Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:45:01 -0700, Therese Hamilton < eastwest writes: > At 05:09 AM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > >My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect. > > This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, or there > is no zodiac at all. They both cannot work. The question is whether the > planets do or don't precess for astrological purposes. > > Of course there's only one zodiac, but the problem is choosing between two methods of calibrating it. Our preferred method gives the stars fixed zodiacal longitudes, while the Tropical measures everything from the points where the Ecliptic and Celestial Equator intersect, assigning these points to 0*0'0 " Aries and Libra respectively. And that's where the problem begins. One reference frame is moving relative to the other. We say it's the equinox points which move, while the Tropicalists say it's the constellations. The reason why we in the west are convinced of our viewpoint is Cyril Fagan's discovery of the Sidereal Solar Retun: prior to this, astrologers weren't interested in solar return charts because they weren't accurate. That's because prior to Fagan no one in the west took precession into account. Imagine a ruler which had the calibration marks slowly rotating around its edge instead of staying in place. If you weren't aware of this movement, such a ruler would be useless to you. Or imagine living in a neighborhood where the local kids like to scramble the street signs -- you'd need other landmarks to find your way around. Not doing so would get you lost. And, astrologically speaking, not compensating for the equinox points' movement (a.k.a. precession) turns out to be equally foolish. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 11:36 PM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > >Why present a false dilemma? That's like saying there is only one > >good religion, or only one good car manufacturer, or only one good > >sex. Zodiacs are all 12-fold becuase of the simple observation that > >12 lunations happen in about a year -- NOT because 13 sidereal lunar > >returns happen in about a year. > > Ed, did anyone ever tell you that you should have been a lawyer?? You are > skittling away from the issue here. The issue is a simple > precession/non-precession one. Where are the planets...really?? Do they > precess over time or don't they for astrological purposes?? Hi again Therese, Planets do not in any way " precess. " Precession is a term used to describe the vernal point's retrograde movement against the fixed background of stars. > > >Here's a great article on that fact {12 fold zodiac]: > > > >http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html > > 'Twelve Gods and Seven Planets' by Ken Gilman on rulerships. Looks like a > really good article for everyone to have. Have plenty of paper in your > printer. It's 30 pages long. Yes, it will be fun to read. The issue isn't a > zodiacal one, actually. As I said, it's about precession. Once the > precession debate is settled, only then can we tackle the zodiac question. I fail to see how any argument on a zodiac will hinge on some argument over precession. > > >Sidereal simply does not take sun/earth nodes into account, and > >Tropical does not take the stellar matrix into account. Both are > >useful, and, I do surely appreciate all of the folks on this list who > >helped me see the light with Sidereal. There is no way merge both > >into one; both must be consulted. > > Same avoidance of the main issue it seems to me. There is only one issue as > I see it, and that's precession/non-precession. You can use terms like > 'stellar matrix' and sun/earth/nodes/rotation/cardinal points, etc., but > they only serve to confuse the fundamental issue. Well, you have yet to prove to me that the zodiac dilemma is a) not a false dilemma and b) singularly tied to precession. > > >Ahh, yes, but how many other cities has the USA bombed into > >submission?? Berlin, Saigon, Serajavo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, > >Kabul... We have to look at all the evidence. > > That's why I invited you to submit other accurate mundane charts with > events, Ed. You're the expert in the mundane area. I only wish I had charts for the above cities. We have nothing to go on. Still, we may want to find other elements that would suggest Baghdad's chart was being activated. The tropical setup is rather active. I'm using a 45* dial: {Baghdad} / {March 19, 2003} -------------------------- {SO} = {SO/SA = ME/NE//AS = PL/MC} {MO} = {MA/MC = NO/AS} {VE} = {UR/PL} {MA} = {VE/SA} {JU} = {MA//JU/SA = VE//ME/NE} {NE} = {UR//JU/SA} {SO/MO = VE/MA = NE/PL} = {PL = MA/UR = MO/MC} {MO/SA} = {SO/UR} {VE/SA} = {SO/PL} {MA/SA} = {SO/MA = JU/UR} {MA/NE = PL//MO/NO} = {SO//JU/SA} {SA/PL} = {NE} {MO/MA = SO/PL} = {SO/VE = UR/PL} > >Yes! Venus was a warring deity to the Nineveh crowd millennia ago. > > So shall we remove peace and love from Venus and make it another war god? > Return to Nineveh perhaps? It is their cultural heritage, not ours, and I can't really speak on it. > >So, why has the USA not ever been at peace? > > I can't say unless we have a completely valid USA chart to check the > position of Mars in relation to the angles. If Tropical astrology is so > successful, why don't astrologers agree on a timed chart for July 4, 1776? > It's all rather nebulous, isn't it? Well, why haven't the siderealists agreed on one? My current thinking is that the Mars/Neppy square (whose midpoint is on the lunar nodes!!) in the July 4 chart is the warring energy. > > >You are comparing two different charts. One is a chart for a > >political entity, and the other is a chart for the boundary stone of > >a city. The political entity that laid that boundary stone is long > >gone. Compare the USA President chart to the Saddamma July 17, 1968 > >chart, and you have apples and apples. > > Hmmm...I believe you are the one who said that sidereal was better a few > posts back. Unless EdK is two or three different people posting as > one...which I'm beginning to wonder about. Why? The Baghdad city chart cannot possibly show why the USA has waged this war. Only the Saddamma-Dictator chart can, or, as I have laid out extensively on ACT, the Iraqi Oil Nationalization chart of June 1, 1972. > > >The 1776 chart has seen more than three degrees of precession, which > >should be quite enough. > > Has anyone compared event transits in both zodiacs to the 1776 chart? Ahh, well, you apparently have not! ;-) > Actually, unless you use very tight transit orbs, (and my experience shows > that transits aren't always that exact), you can probably make both charts > work fairly well. Well, three degrees is rather liberal, especially in harmonics and midpoint work, where the details contain the devils. > >Very simple. Put up the 9-11 chart to the Presidential chart, and > >see the fur fly! > > Please post the data for these two events. 9-11: 9-11-2001, Ground Zero, 8:45 AM EDT President of the USA: 4-30-1789, two blocks from Ground Zero, ~12:59 PM LMT. But why should the presidential > chart be any more important than other charts that astrologers argue about > for the USA? (I believe that Ken Bowser uses the presidential chart, if you > mean the inauguration of George Washington.) Yeah, it is valid because the President is the chief political officer of the legal governmental entity called the United States of America. > > >Cardinal points are sensitive because they are products of Earth's > >rotation and solar cycle! This is indeed the very definition of the > >Tropical zodiac, and anything that goes cardinal is conjunct the > >sun/earth node. Nodes are valid points, as far as I know! > > But this still says nothing about there being a zodiac based on the > rotation/solar cycle. We went through all of this months ago. The original zodiac of Mesopotamia was divided into 12 signs to mimic the fact that nearly 12 lunations fall within a solar year. The zodiac was not strictly either " sidereal " or " tropical, " but meant to be representational of both; sidereal so that the sphere of fixed stars was measured, and tropical so that the approximate times of equinoxes were the beginning of the calendar and order of " signs. " I don't disagree that what are called the 'cardinal > points' are very important in astrology. But they do not have to mark sign > ingresses. They don't have to have anything at all to do with 'signs.' But > their position among the stars--yes, that should be very important. I agree here that the tropical zodiac signs were taken directly from the asterisms or constellations. The importance of the cardinal points was added early on by Greek astrologers, and in the scheme of things, has only a couple of centuries of youth on your stellar- oriented POV. > >Of course, the best validation of the Trop Zod is the fact that a > >gazillion astrologers have used it successfully over and over and > >over again for centuries. > > And that's why Tropical astrologers still cannot agree on a timed chart for > July 4, 1776? Well, part of that is the fact that the July 4 chart is subsumed by the later Federal charts of 1789. And, let's face it, a lot of idiots have been muckying the waters of the Independence chart for a long time. Ron Howland seems to have found the right time, IMO. > > The " sidereal " is the relative newcomer, > >and as such needs to be tested more thoroughly. > > In India it's been around as long as the Tropical system in the west. Dr. > Raman, the dean of Indian astrologers, is on record for numerous accurate > political predictions. They're all in old issues of his magazine going back > to pre WWII. Hard to argue with that!! I would suggest that the techniques used by Vedic practitioners like Raman and the typical Western Siderealist are miles apart. > > Everyone please see Dale Huckbey's article on the C.U.R.A site on the > 'success' of Tropical astrology. http://cura.free.fr/xxv/25hucke.html This seems to be a philosophical piece, and not a refutation of " tropical astrology " on empiricism. Besides, we are ignoring the big reason for tropical astrology in the first place: Agriculture. It was simply good to know when the planting seasons were happening, and thus a reflcetion of the life- cycles of the planet. Rudhyar made that point over and over in the first book of _Tryptich_. > > It's ever so much easier to argue then to cooperate in a real research > project, isn't it? (Sigh....) Show us the money, babe! If you have the goods, lay 'em out. You know I love you dearly! That's why we need to discuss these things. - Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 , Richard <erichardg@e...> wrote: > > Ed, > > There are various reasons why the number 12 rules over astrology. That there are 'about' 12 > full moons in a year is not one of them. The number 13 full moons in a year is found > strongly in cave art, which precedes all other representations. I agree that cave art may depict this, but the 12-sign astrology that grew out of the Mesopotamian/Greek schools was most definitely based on lunation cycles. Calendar history shows this rather clearly. Numerology came later. Very best, - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 At 11:12 PM 4/18/03 -0700, Richard wrote: > >Theresa, > >Logicality is the sine qua non of Science where Mercury tells Moon what to do. But in >Astrology Moon tells Mercury what to do. Logicality is for us, however, an excellent >handmaiden. At the feast of astrologers, if she promises to mind her manners we allow her >to enter through the back door after everyone else is seated. > >R. Richard, !!!!!!!!!! Yeah, Ed's got the Moon, I have the Mercury. My Moon is totalled--combust (balsamic) a debilitated Sun. Nice clear rising Mercury, however. This child don't live in the world of the senses (Moon). Loved your paragraph. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 At 12:36 PM 4/19/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >Hi again Therese, > >Planets do not in any way " precess. " Precession is a term used to >describe the vernal point's retrograde movement against the fixed >background of stars. I know, but it's a simple way of putting it in regard to the zodiacs. >I fail to see how any argument on a zodiac will hinge on some >argument over precession. Actually I'm not arguing for a zodiac at this time. I'm trying to call attention to the fundamental precession question. I didn't title this stand very well--Sidereal/Tropical zodicas. Should have been 'the precession question.' >Well, you have yet to prove to me that the zodiac dilemma is a) not a false dilemma and b) singularly tied to precession. Yes, it's B. Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestion on how to test for precession? I thought the use of ancient mundane charts might help. >I only wish I had charts for the above cities. We have nothing to go >on. Still, we may want to find other elements that would suggest >Baghdad's chart was being activated. The tropical setup is rather >active. I'm using a 45* dial: > >{Baghdad} / {March 19, 2003} >-------------------------- >{SO} = {SO/SA = ME/NE//AS = PL/MC} >{MO} = {MA/MC = NO/AS} >{VE} = {UR/PL} >{MA} = {VE/SA} >{JU} = {MA//JU/SA = VE//ME/NE} >{NE} = {UR//JU/SA} >{SO/MO = VE/MA = NE/PL} = {PL = MA/UR = MO/MC} >{MO/SA} = {SO/UR} >{VE/SA} = {SO/PL} >{MA/SA} = {SO/MA = JU/UR} >{MA/NE = PL//MO/NO} = {SO//JU/SA} >{SA/PL} = {NE} >{MO/MA = SO/PL} = {SO/VE = UR/PL} But, see, midpoints (like the navamsa chart I use) are secondary. I'm not at all convinced that they apply in mundane charts. They are only mathematical points, and (in my opinion) have no relevance if the main planetary configuations are missing. P.S. I can't read midponts. I have to see a circular horoscope! To 'see' midpoints, I'd have to mark them in the basic horoscope. >Well, why haven't the siderealists agreed on one [July 4 chart]? First, there are only a handful of active sidereal astrologers in the U.S. today compared to many thousands of Tropical astrolgoers in the western hemisphere. And how many of them have studied the U.S. question, I'm not sure. I have not studied it at all, having very little interest in mundane astrology until the present. >> >Very simple. Put up the 9-11 chart to the Presidential chart, and >> >see the fur fly! >> >> Please post the data for these two events. > >9-11: 9-11-2001, Ground Zero, 8:45 AM EDT > >President of the USA: 4-30-1789, two blocks from Ground Zero, ~12:59 >PM LMT. Thanks. I was too lazy to look up the data. >Yeah, it [presidential chart] is valid because the President is the chief political >officer of the legal governmental entity called the United States of >America. >> And that's why Tropical astrologers still cannot agree on a timed >chart for July 4, 1776? > >Well, part of that is the fact that the July 4 chart is subsumed by >the later Federal charts of 1789. And, let's face it, a lot of >idiots have been muckying the waters of the Independence chart for a >long time. Ron Howland seems to have found the right time, IMO. Second time you've mentioned Ron Howland. Please give the data he's decided upon. Thanks. >Hard to argue with that!! I would suggest that the techniques used >by Vedic practitioners like Raman and the typical Western Siderealist >are miles apart. Quite correct!! Vedic techniques are much closer to the Tropical. They came from the same place: Hellenistic practitioners. >> It's ever so much easier to argue then to cooperate in a real >research >> project, isn't it? (Sigh....) > >Show us the money, babe! If you have the goods, lay 'em out. It takes cooperation, a group endeavor just like in science. Which single scientist without funding, laboratories and assistants discovered the basics of DNA and everything that's followed? One person with one viewpoint won't get us anywhere. But who will cooperate? Today's astrologers are apparently being ruled by Uranus?! " I'll do my thing and you do yours. Let's not disturb each other's preconceptions. " Guess we could start like Steve Job, a few people in a (virtual) garage. >You know I love you dearly! That's why we need to discuss these >things. Discuss, and then get to work, Hon! Want to keep me alive? Keep the precesson question unsettled for another 50 years, and I'll still be here. I don't plan to leave until there's some solid astrological science for our followers to stand on. In love and cooperation we trust, (I'm not ready to turn Venus into a warlord!) Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2003 Report Share Posted April 21, 2003 Theresa, Bet your Mercury and Moon aspect each other-have another look. I wonder... R. Therese Hamilton wrote: > > !!!!!!!!!! > > Yeah, Ed's got the Moon, I have the Mercury. My Moon is totalled--combust > (balsamic) a debilitated Sun. Nice clear rising Mercury, however. This > child don't live in the world of the senses (Moon). Loved your paragraph. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2003 Report Share Posted April 21, 2003 Kevin, I do find value in tropical returns but it is the sidereal that offers such clarity and brilliance. Have a look at the tropical SR for JFK's demise...so on the MC, everything. R. > Kevin wrote: > The reason why we in the west are > convinced of our viewpoint is Cyril Fagan's discovery of the Sidereal Solar > Retun: prior to this, astrologers weren't interested in solar return charts > because they weren't accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2003 Report Share Posted April 22, 2003 At 11:11 PM 4/20/03 -0700, Richard wrote: > >Theresa, > >Bet your Mercury and Moon aspect each other-have another look. I wonder... Nope. Moon is 10Libra34 (sidereal-Krishnamurti) and Mercury is 5 Scorpio. Moon in 11th, Mercury in 12th (rising). Asc 4Sag05 I reject all quadrant systems of house division--use the Asc degree in all signs as the centers of the 12 houses. T. 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.