Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 At 02:12 AM 1/18/04 -0000, Matthew wrote: >A few comments on the CapSolar and CanSolar ingresses I uploaded to >the file section here:... > >The CapSolar is very straight-forward. Uranus on the MC, Pluto semi- >square MC... (I'll comment on the CapSolar in a later post. Also I'll reply to some other comments in Matthew's post. For now the Cansolar...) Thank you, Matthew for uploading the ingress, progressed and quake charts, since I don't have the software to calculate progressions. You answered my question as to what ingress charts a traditional siderealist would use for the Loma Prieta quake. My printer is balking at the tri-wheels so I hand drew the three Cancer ingress related charts by hand. I used Cancer because that chart was closest to the quake date. (For future uploads, maybe it would be possible to keep the charts single or bi-wheels?) Comparing these charts to the K ingress for the Loma Prieta quake, the comparison is one of simple clarity. I've looked at 13 major quakes the last few days (not a great number, I admit), but these quake related charts have basically the same type of stress aspects related to the angles. The stress aspects are even more prominent in the K monthly ingress charts than in the quake charts. The aspects related to the angles tend to be the same--conjunctions, squares, oppositions and the quincunx. Sometimes there will be a trine or sextile as a supporting aspect, but that's about it. Venus isn't involved in the angular stress aspects. Venus is a planet of harmony and order and not disruptive like Mars or Uranus. In India they say that the square aspect and the quincunx (called the ‘8th house aspect!...) Are aspects of Mars, and the K ingress and quake charts tend to support this view. Now, taking the Loma Prieta quake as only one example, the same angular stress aspects are in the K Libra ingress and the quake chart itself, except that in the ingress chart, the key to the configuration is closer to the M.C. (M.C. 6, Uranus 8) Probably no one would disagree that the stress aspects that describe the quake in the Loma Prieta chart itself is the MC anchored T cross (MC-Uranus-Saturn-Neptune opposite Jupiter and square Mercury). Since the Moon exactly trines Mercury, the Moon can be called a kind of trigger for the quake. Now if we go back and look at the F-B Cancer ingress, the main angular configuration in this chart is the Mars-Venus conjunction on the Descendent. From the quake chart itself Venus is conjunct the Cancer ingress M.C. and the Moon is in Taurus at the I.C. I believe this doesn't do anything to help the clarity of a quake picture. Venus aspecting an exalted Moon in a sign of Venus isn't exactly what you'd expect to see on the angles of a quake ingress. Yes, the Uranus-Moon-Saturn-Neptune conjunction in the CanSolar is evil looking, but this conjunction isn't in the foreground and has no anchoring planet to the foreground. It merely floats somewhere between the M.C. and the Ascendant. (The house location would depend on the house system a person was using.) In the quake chart itself, Venus is nowhere near an angle nor does it closely aspect any planet near an angle. So the Cancer ingress chart doesn't mesh with the quake chart in a logical manner. If we can't clearly see an impending explosive event in an ingress chart, then all I can do is ask of what use are the charts? There is impressive consistency in the K monthly ingress charts, but there seems to be an unwillingness on this list to look at anything that might rock the traditional boat a little. There is nothing wrong with progressions, minor aspects and midpoints. But using all these techniques is like a large multi-colored box of crayons. Something is going to show up in every chart. There's no way something impressive looking **couldn't** show up!! The K monthly ingress charts are like a child's box of four basic crayons: red, blue, yellow and green. The same few bright colors show up in all the charts like bright splotches in children's kindergarten pictures. I expect the true answer is to combine the proper ingress chart with the best kind of progressions to isolate an exact time for an event. But the progressions won't work very well if the basic birth chart--the ingress or individual birth chart or whatever--is wrong. Of course this post is just so many words without the charts, so I'll have to see what I can do about uploading some charts this week. I think a basic problem in communication is that (let's face it) the majority of western sidereal astrologers are men, and men will be more likely to think in numbers and isolated planetary contacts. Women think more in patterns, so that's the way I look at charts. No patterns (aspect configurations involving several planets and the angles), no meaning to the chart--for disasterous events anyway. There has to be consistency between quite a number of ingress charts for those charts to have any predictive value. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 , " mquellas " <mquellas@j...> wrote: > A few comments on the CapSolar and CanSolar ingresses I uploaded to > the file section here: > They are from Solar Fire 5. (...) > RN: Mathew the quotidian method of progressing the solar return is straight forward as described by Fagan, Stahl, and Eshelman. Using this method I cannot come up with the angles you have for either the progressed Capsolar or Cansolar. I am assuming you used Solar Fire to progress the charts for you. When I first got Solar Fire I compared their results against Fagan's many times and found them to be in error, much to my great disappointment. Doing the progressions by hand works out to 11:48:04 for the quotidian progressed RAMC of the Capsolar (redone for the epicenter by the way) and 22:09:10 for the Cansolar. > I would have to disagree with Bob that the CanSolar does not show > anything, especially through > progressions. RN: Here is what I had to say, cut and pasted from my post. Please note that I said nothing was on the angle of the PROGRESSED chart, not the return chart. [RN: I looked at the Western Sidereal Cansolar and its quotidian progression. Nothing in the return, its quotidian progression, or transiting, is on an angle of the progression.] >(...) Uranus and Pluto are > just about equi-distant from > the MC on either side; UR/PL = 12 Sco 49, again a fairly obvious > midpoint to see. > RN: 'just about'. A 2 degree difference is a difference of 2 days in the timing of solar returns. > The mean Q1 progression of the CanSolar brings the Moon to conjoin > Saturn within a degree, RN: Again, a matter of timing, but in this case a difference of about a whole month. > The quotidian ASC conjoins ingress Jupiter, sesqui- > squares ingress Pluto; > quotidian MC at 11 Aqu 06 was still within one degree of the ingress > Jupiter/Pluto midpoint (10 > Leo 08). >(...) > Sidereally yours, > Matthew RN: Please hand calculate the progression of the angles. You will not get these contacts. How long have you been using Solar Fire to progress solar returns Mathew? Regards, Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Jumping in here as it seems it is the only way I will be involved in any discourse on this list. Makes me think of that line in the movie 'A Few Good Men', " You want the truth? You couldn't stand the truth! " , or something close to that. , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 02:12 AM 1/18/04 -0000, Matthew wrote: > >(...) > > Thank you, Matthew for uploading the ingress, progressed and quake charts, > since I don't have the software to calculate progressions. > RN: Therese, you DO have software to progress solar and lunar returns by both the precision and quotidian methods. That's what the programs I gave you do. When you run the chart data on whatever program you use, the planets are automaticaly progressed. There is also an instruction sheet in the zipfile telling you how to setup and use the programs. They will not change anything in any programs or attach themselves to any program on your computer. They are DOS programs, completely independant, very small and very fast. All that is required to run them is a DOS window. You can even run them without having any other program on your computer open. > (...) > > Comparing these charts to the K ingress for the Loma Prieta quake, the > comparison is one of simple clarity. (...) > > The stress aspects are even more prominent in the K monthly ingress charts > than in the quake charts. The aspects related to the angles tend to be the > same--conjunctions, squares, oppositions and the quincunx. > (...) > Now, taking the Loma Prieta quake as only one example, the same angular > stress aspects are in the K Libra ingress and the quake chart itself, > except that in the ingress chart, the key to the configuration is closer to > the M.C. (M.C. 6, Uranus 8) > RN: As it is in the Fagan-Bradley Libra Ingress. I think the ingress charts to be considered should be for the same ingress. > (...) > > Now if we go back and look at the F-B Cancer ingress, the main angular > configuration in this chart is the Mars-Venus conjunction on the > Descendent. From the quake chart itself Venus is conjunct the Cancer > ingress M.C. and the Moon is in Taurus at the I.C. > > I believe this doesn't do anything to help the clarity of a quake picture. > Venus aspecting an exalted Moon in a sign of Venus isn't exactly what you'd > expect to see on the angles of a quake ingress. Yes, the > Uranus-Moon-Saturn-Neptune conjunction in the CanSolar is evil looking, but > this conjunction isn't in the foreground and has no anchoring planet to the > foreground. It merely floats somewhere between the M.C. and the Ascendant. > (...) > > In the quake chart itself, Venus is nowhere near an angle nor does it > closely aspect any planet near an angle. So the Cancer ingress chart > doesn't mesh with the quake chart in a logical manner. > RN: I reiterate, the ingress charts to be compared should be for the same ingress. > If we can't clearly see an impending explosive event in an ingress chart, > then all I can do is ask of what use are the charts? There is impressive > consistency in the K monthly ingress charts, but there seems to be an > unwillingness on this list to look at anything that might rock the > traditional boat a little. > RN: Such as progressed lunars. Although as an aside, let me say the progressed lunars I use come from the Fagan-Bradley SVP. Using any other Vernal Point would not yield the same results (RAMCs) and for anything to be considered effective in these charts it must be in hard aspect (conjunction, square, or opposition only) to an angle and be within 2 degrees orb (a time difference of about 4 hours at most, not days or months). > There is nothing wrong with progressions, minor aspects and midpoints. But > using all these techniques is like a large multi-colored box of crayons. > Something is going to show up in every chart. There's no way something > impressive looking **couldn't** show up!! RN: Unless you constrain aspects to the angles to something like 2 degrees or less. In the K LibSolar Ingress Uranus fits this criteria. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are 8 or 9 degrees away. The K monthly ingress charts are > like a child's box of four basic crayons: red, blue, yellow and green. The > same few bright colors show up in all the charts like bright splotches in > children's kindergarten pictures. > > I expect the true answer is to combine the proper ingress chart with the > best kind of progressions to isolate an exact time for an event. RN: Progressed lunars do this repeatedly to within minutes or hours. But the > progressions won't work very well if the basic birth chart--the ingress or > individual birth chart or whatever--is wrong. > > Of course this post is just so many words without the charts, so I'll have > to see what I can do about uploading some charts this week. > RN: I will respond with progressed lunars for each K ingress. > I think a basic problem in communication is that (let's face it) the > majority of western sidereal astrologers are men, and men will be more > likely to think in numbers and isolated planetary contacts. Women think > more in patterns, so that's the way I look at charts. No patterns (aspect > configurations involving several planets and the angles), no meaning to the > chart--for disasterous events anyway. RN: The K ingress for the Loma Prieta Quake has only Uranus involving an angle unless you use orbs of at least 9 degrees. There has to be consistency between > quite a number of ingress charts for those charts to have any predictive > value. > > Therese Amen. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Hi Bob, Have you taken these software errors in Solar Fire to their representative, Madalyn Hillis-Dineen? She is in some of the groups...Star Study, ACT, etc. and always addressing problems when asked. Or perhaps you have history? )* bobnicewander wrote: > RN: Please hand calculate the progression of the angles. You will not > get these contacts. How long have you been using Solar Fire to > progress solar returns Mathew? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 DS, It may be that Solar Fire and Mathew use the Mean Sun while I use the right ascension of the apparent Sun to progress solar returns as Fagan wrote in the July 1968 issue of American Astrology that it (the right ascension of the apparent Sun) gave better results in the timing of events. I am assuming that to be the reason for the difference in the progressed charts which Mathew and I have done. Solar Fire does not indicate in their help file what they use to progress solar returns. This should be corrected. I have used the right ascension of the apparent Sun for nearly 30 years and agree with Fagan that its use gives better results than the use of the Mean Sun. In the progressed CapSolar for the 1989 quake the RAMC was 249d 14m, the midpoint of transiting Uranus and Pluto was 249d 14m. For the progressed CanSolar the RAMC was 332d 17m, the midpoint of transiting Saturn and Pluto was 332d 48m. Regrds, Bob , Dark Star <pansophia@e...> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > Have you taken these software errors in Solar Fire to their > representative, Madalyn Hillis-Dineen? She is in some of the groups...Star > Study, ACT, etc. and always addressing problems when asked. Or perhaps you > have history? > > )* > > bobnicewander wrote: > > > RN: Please hand calculate the progression of the angles. You will not > > get these contacts. How long have you been using Solar Fire to > > progress solar returns Mathew? > > 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.