Guest guest Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Hi Steve I reviewed pages 25-26 and 83-84 in Fagan's ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS. I'm afaid that Fagan's statements can't really be taken as 'proof' for an ancient zodiac. On pages 25-26 he bases his statements on insertions into the diagram by a scribe and then concludes: " ...the Bull is seen charging while the Ram is reclining. Can we visualize the zodiac commencing with a somnolent Ram? " This is nice poetic rhetoric, but it doesn't really say anything about the mathematical facts of the zodiac. No scholar would accept the described insertions as 'proof' that the zodiac began with Taurus. I'd have to see these insertions myself and talk to scholars before I'd know what they might have meant aside from Fagan's conclusions. Please don't think I'm out to criticize Fagan. We all work with the tools we have at hand and our own belief systems, and we all hope to make significant discoveries that might have an effect on humanity's understanding of the cosmos. Pages 83-84: page 84 Fagan concludes: " ...here we have direct monumental evidence to the effect that the ancient **calendar** of Egypt commenced at Spica's heliacal rising. Reference to these three festivals fix the year of the calendar and **presumably** the zodiacs perfectly. " Right. The **calendar.** No problem there. The zodiacs?? This is where Fagan's speculation comes in. This is why academic training is required to interpret what one sees with the eyes or hears with the ears. We have to learn to separate what is really there from belief and speculation. This is a tough one for astologers, most of whom to date don't have a lot of academic training or university courses in logic. We have to be taught to think straight--we really do--and until astrologers are trained, we'll be right there with the rest of humanity, hopelessly muddling together fact, fiction and belief systems. This is why I throw in a lot of academic quotes in my posts. I figure the scholars know what they are talking about even if I don't. Unfortunately if you read both Fagan and Garth Allen/Bradley with an unbiased mind, you'll see that the writing of both is liberally sprinkled with poetic emotionalism. This alone makes me suspicious of their conclusions. ....and just now I pulled up their charts, which I had not committed to memory: Bradley has the Moon conjunct the ascendant: Asc 15 Aqu; Moon 16 Aqu Stahl also has the Moon near the ascendant: Asc 25 Vir; Moon 27 Vir Fagan: some debate about his exact time of birth but he has Moon square Mercury and exactly trine the Sun. Am I going to completely trust these Lunar guys? What do you think? Sincerely, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Therese, That three astrological titans had a prominent Moon should indicate to all that the Moon is a sine qua non of astrologers...unless, unless they posses a very masculine chart that requires solar proofing. Then all is understood. Dark*Star Therese Hamilton wrote: > Bradley has the Moon conjunct the ascendant: Asc 15 Aqu; Moon 16 Aqu > > Stahl also has the Moon near the ascendant: Asc 25 Vir; Moon 27 Vir > > Fagan: some debate about his exact time of birth but he has Moon square > Mercury and exactly trine the Sun. > > Am I going to completely trust these Lunar guys? What do you think? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 Dark Star wrote > > That three astrological titans had a prominent Moon should indicate > to all that > the Moon is a sine qua non of astrologers...unless, unless they posses > a very > masculine chart that requires solar proofing. Then all is understood. Yes, the rising Moon is quite suspicous, and yet goes far beyond the confinements of a well placed Saturn. Marc Edmond Jones and Marion March would know, with Moon culminating and Moon rising respectively. But I think we need to defer to another authority here, someone who had a very difficult time completing his formal studies, and yet was not bereft of higher knowledge: Paramahansa Yogananda, Moon 2 Leo, Asc 5 leo. However I'm certain the scholars would not be convinced. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 At 02:47 PM 5/6/04 -0700, Dark*Star wrote: > >Therese, > >That three astrological titans had a prominent Moon should indicate to all that >the Moon is a sine qua non of astrologers... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe--and maybe the Moon is responsible for the modern variety show that is today's astrology. All personal opinion of varying dimensions and very little science and research. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 I believe dog and pony have other regnants. As for science and research ~ Not everyone wants their intellectual property to show up as a chapter in somebody else's book. For the Moon in astrology ~ Al Biruni would be a good start. His ASC at 27 Leo (an astrological degree) has the partile sextile of Moon in the 3rd with Uranus. It is also the SU/PL midpoint which crowd on both sides: 9/04/0973 0:54:16 UT Kath (Biruni) USSR It's the astronomers that hunker after the Sun. Dark*Star Therese Hamilton wrote: > At 02:47 PM 5/6/04 -0700, Dark*Star wrote: > > > >Therese, > > > >That three astrological titans had a prominent Moon should indicate to > all that > >the Moon is a sine qua non of astrologers... > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Maybe--and maybe the Moon is responsible for the modern variety show that > is today's astrology. All personal opinion of varying dimensions and very > little science and research. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 Therese Hamilton wrote: > Hi Steve > > > This is nice poetic rhetoric, but it doesn't really say anything about > the > mathematical facts of the zodiac. No scholar would accept the > described > insertions as 'proof' that the zodiac began with Taurus. Hi Therese, Yes of course no scholar would, however one picture may be worth a thousand words and I would be interested in a number of opinions of this picture--I intend to pursue this as time permits. > > > Pages 83-84: page 84 Fagan concludes: " ...here we have direct > monumental > evidence to the effect that the ancient **calendar** of Egypt > commenced at > Spica's heliacal rising. Reference to these three festivals fix the > year of > the calendar and **presumably** the zodiacs perfectly. " > > > This is a tough one for astologers, most of whom to date don't have a > lot > of academic training or university courses in logic. We have to be > taught > to think straight--we really do--and until astrologers are trained, > we'll > be right there with the rest of humanity, hopelessly muddling together > > fact, fiction and belief systems. This is why I throw in a lot of > academic > quotes in my posts. I figure the scholars know what they are talking > about > even if I don't. Scholars, like the rest of us in this muddled world are limited by their senses. Waiting with baited breath for the approval of scholars is not my approach--although I do try to keep up somewhat with the knowledge of the past. Astrological knowledge, like other forms of knowledge, is both within and without. I'm afraid I can't wait on scholarship when a client needs a quick answer to a pressing question. > > Unfortunately if you read both Fagan and Garth Allen/Bradley with an > unbiased mind, you'll see that the writing of both is liberally > sprinkled > with poetic emotionalism. This alone makes me suspicious of their > conclusions. And this makes me open up to the beauty and oft undefinable quality of astrology. > > > ...and just now I pulled up their charts, which I had not committed to > > memory: > > Bradley has the Moon conjunct the ascendant: Asc 15 Aqu; Moon 16 Aqu > > Stahl also has the Moon near the ascendant: Asc 25 Vir; Moon 27 Vir > > Fagan: some debate about his exact time of birth but he has Moon > square > Mercury and exactly trine the Sun. > > Am I going to completely trust these Lunar guys? What do you think? If you worship Saturn, then obviously not. You are asking this question of an angular Moon/Neptune with 4 highly inspirational planets in Sagittarius and a Scorpio rising. With additionally a Moon in :Pisces navamsa--so you already know my answer. We can only act according to our nature in these matters, and obviuosly no one, not even our scholars, are always right. Best , STeve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 It's astrologers what read charts, not scholars. While Robert Hand is not known for reading charts...he can tell you very well how others through history have read them. He doesn't much predict tomorrow, just how our forebears predicted yesterday. He's an undertaker that digs up. See his SATURN 0 Uranus while 45 Jupiter which so well resurrect unto lucifer Light. And God bless him for it. Meanwhile the Uranians (embedded with Moon, of course) will be divining tomorrow. Dark*Star > Therese Hamilton wrote: > > > This is nice poetic rhetoric, but it doesn't really say anything about > > the > > mathematical facts of the zodiac. No scholar would accept the > > described > > insertions as 'proof' that the zodiac began with Taurus. > > > Pages 83-84: page 84 Fagan concludes: " ...here we have direct > > monumental > > evidence to the effect that the ancient **calendar** of Egypt > > commenced at > > Spica's heliacal rising. Reference to these three festivals fix the > > year of > > the calendar and **presumably** the zodiacs perfectly. " > > > > > > This is a tough one for astologers, most of whom to date don't have a > > lot > > of academic training or university courses in logic. We have to be > > taught > > to think straight--we really do--and until astrologers are trained, > > we'll > > be right there with the rest of humanity, hopelessly muddling together > > > > fact, fiction and belief systems. This is why I throw in a lot of > > academic > > quotes in my posts. I figure the scholars know what they are talking > > about > > even if I don't. > > > > > > Unfortunately if you read both Fagan and Garth Allen/Bradley with an > > unbiased mind, you'll see that the writing of both is liberally > > sprinkled > > with poetic emotionalism. This alone makes me suspicious of their > > conclusions. > > > 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.