Guest guest Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 I really don't understand why I write correctly my posting and the paragraphs are separated, but when I send it to the list it appears all together. Maybe I need technical assistance in this matter. I deliberately chose tropical and placidus domification because they are the most used. My thanks to Therese for rewriting it but it seems she does not read clearly my writing, something that happens oftenly in the list. I had said nth times that a person has the right to use the tropical zodiac and to be more liberal, even to not believe that astrology works. I respect and accept that. In my family few persons believe in it! And many friends that studied with me neither believe in astrology but anyway they are and will be my friends for the whole life. I also am not totally sure that it works. But going back to the posting,what I am saying is that there is a PLACE for doing that, which is the tropical lists. And sorry but in my case I don`t have any doubst of which zodiac is better so why should I continue reading all the same days the same blah-blah of how the zodiac originated or if precession must apply?. And there is also a MOMENT for doing that. When? When you are just beginning to practice astrology, but once you had made your choice, you must move on. Otherwise you will stagnate. It is like finishing kindergarden and instead of advancing to first grade they continue teaching you the same. This is one of the main reasons why this list is so static and very little dynamic. Practically none charts are analyzed here and when they are mentioned, people refer to tropical and revaluated concepts such as saying that if a person is tropical gemini changes opinions frequently, all the legacy of Liz Greene. I think there should be a minimum rule here , to accept and analyze sidereal charts. Otherwise we will continue seeing the same with the consequent decay of the list. Alfonso Osorio , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > Oh, Sorry, Alfonso. I see that you did say you were using Placidus for the > Tropical chart. > > T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 At 12:12 AM 4/28/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >Join ACT. I did, but there haven't been any posts since I joined. >No, what happened was that you were unable to demonstrate it >properly. As I remember, the discussion got so antagonistic that everyone left including me. >I again would point out the absurdity of claiming that one >chart is Marslike becuase the ascendant is 29*30' Aries and another >is Venusian becuase it is 00*30' Taurus. Of course that is true. No rising sign has any particular character without a planet being there. The real question is, " Do rulers exist, and if so, how do we demonstrate that they work? " It's the placement of rulers that would be important, not the character of the sign. >> >If Mars and Venus are square in your natal chart, they are square no matter which damn zodiac you use. > >> This is true as far as the planets themselves go. But depending on >the signs and houses the planets are in, they will express in different areas of >life. >Well, how? I've been working on this today. Maybe I'll be able to post something tonight. One thing is very obvious and that is that you can't take one planetary configuration out of chart without considering at the rest of the chart. Alfonso will be interested how the Hindu rules play out here. >This only makes sense in the Tropical zod anyhow, becuase we can show harmonic aspects to >the cardinal points. The " cusps " of sidereal signs are not based on any such rationale. Well, then it's up to people like Alfonso and me to show that there are indeed sidereal cusps. Have you read John Addey's work? There is an entire wave theory of the zodiac, and the initial points of signs don't necessarily have to be at an equinox point. Rob Hand also has a good (if difficult to understand) article on the wave theory in 'Essays on Astrology.' >> How would you use the cardinal points in the horoscopes of >individuals? > >Progressions, my dear! Do you mean it would be significant if a planet progressed into a cardinal sign in a person's chart? If so, please give an example from your own chart files. >Also, if midpoints fall on 0 Aries, we know of a mundane connexion. And if an astrologer doesn't use midpoints, would the cardinal points matter? And I'm not sure what a 'mundane connextion' is. >> Precession vs. non-precession isn't a false dilemma. Over time a >planet can't be in two different locations at once, as demonstrated in the >Baghdad Foundation chart. > >You are confusing " place " with " measured value. " I don't understand what you mean here ('place' and 'measured value.') You'd have to give an example. >I honestly know of no astrologer who uses Tropical and has such angst >against sidereal. It's kind of how I feel about the square Indian charts. They are meaningless to me, so I don't try to read them. The sidereal is another language to Tropical astrologers, but they are too polite to say they don't want to bother studying it. >Love you, Ed K My astrology and I are one. Can't hate one and love the other! Therese P.S. The problem with this list is that the diehard western sidereal astrologers don't seem to want to discuss horoscopes and those of us who would like to talk about actual charts don't use the western sidereal system. So I'm wondering why this list even exists?? What do the list owner and oldtimers want to see here? 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.