Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > I believe (have observed) that forward aspects in the zodiac are much > stronger than reverse aspects, so your Mercury influences the Moon (mind in > general), but the reverse doesn't happen. This gives a strong Mercurial > influence. I know this is an area of debate among astrologers with some who note that forward aspects are stronger than reverse aspects and others who note no difference at all. I have a highly retentive and impressionable memory as well as strong visualization abilities and have been told that this is due to the lunar aspect to Mercury. But as with almost everything else in astrology it is always up for further discussion! > With more than a two degree orb? Vivian Robson and many of the 'old' astrologers like Lilly gave HUGE orbs to fixed stars by modern standards -- some gave them orbs between seven and ten degrees! I would not use such orbs myself but according to the program I use Sabik is just shy of a two-degree orb to Mercury. > There must be another name for this star? Spiculum is the name of the star and it is given in the list compiled by Anne Wright on her excellent website. Both Sabik and Spiculum have influences which relate well (in certain respects) to my experiences. > How about Maasym (lamda Hercules)? It's only minutes from your Moon. Deep > yellow, supposed to be the ancient star color related to the intellect. > Ptolemy, of course, gives this star a Mercurial influence. Tenacity certainly applies! Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 , " kyuseiki " <kyuseiki> wrote: > Vivian Robson and many of the 'old' astrologers like Lilly gave HUGE > orbs to fixed stars by modern standards I forgot to add -- The site by Anne Wright is incredible. I hope she turns it into a book someday. She seems to have collected information from every available source. Nicholas DeVore wrote a book back in the 'thirties called 'Predictive Astrology.' It is on primary directions and is one of my favorite books. He includes a list of fixed stars and their influences whenever major bodies are brought to them by direction. Simmonite in his 'Arcana of Astrology' has a similar list with fewer stars but more details as to their influence. The 'older' authors seemed to use the fixed stars much more than modern ones do -- they are rarely if ever mentioned in modern astrology texts. I think this is the result of thinking of astrology as just the study of cyclical phase relationships -- the approach that was pioneered by Jones and Rudhyar -- with no regard for or connection to the actual sky. It is the ultimate Hellenization of astrology -- a conceptual model completely divorced from the natural world. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 At 05:13 PM 9/16/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: > >Vivian Robson and many of the 'old' astrologers like Lilly gave HUGE >orbs to fixed stars by modern standards -- some gave them orbs between >seven and ten degrees! This doesn't make sense since there are fairly bright stars in most degrees of the zodiac. And Diana Rosenberg has several stars/nebulas/whatever in every degree. I think the bright stars probably spread out somewhat--maybe two degrees, but the smaller stars I'd keep within a degree. All open to research, however. >Spiculum is the name of the star and it is given in the list compiled >by Anne Wright on her excellent website. Oh, I just found it! It's at 7 sidereal Sagittarius. The Lagoon Nebula. I was looking for it near your Moon in Scorpio. You don't have anything near 7 Sag, so I'm wondering why you mentioned Spiculum? Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 At 06:04 PM 9/16/04 -0000, Andrew wrote: > >The site by Anne Wright is incredible. I hope she turns it into a book >someday. She seems to have collected information from every available >source. Andrew, Yes, her site is incredible. It's been on the internet for a long time. I think if she were going to do a book, it would be done by now. A year or two ago I printed out every page on the stars, (but not the constellations as there are some good books on them), noted the sidereal positions and spsiral bound the pages into several books. It was too risky to leave the information only on the internet. Anne has done a wonderful service for the astrological community. >Nicholas DeVore wrote a book back in the 'thirties called 'Predictive >Astrology.' Do you know if this book is in print now? If not, suggest to Dave at astroamerica.com that he might print it. >The 'older' authors seemed to use the >fixed stars much more than modern ones do -- they are rarely if ever >mentioned in modern astrology texts. I think this is the result of >thinking of astrology as just the study of cyclical phase >relationships -- the approach that was pioneered by Jones and Rudhyar >-- with no regard for or connection to the actual sky. And the stars are difficult to use in the Tropoical zodiac as they have to be adjusted each year for precession. >It is the >ultimate Hellenization of astrology -- a conceptual model completely >divorced from the natural world. Well, let's all work to change that model! As soon as I'm finished with the 12 signs, I'm starting on the lunar mansions and their relationship to the stars. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > Oh, I just found it! It's at 7 sidereal Sagittarius. The Lagoon Nebula. I > was looking for it near your Moon in Scorpio. You don't have anything near > 7 Sag, so I'm wondering why you mentioned Spiculum? I have the Moon in sidereal Scorpio 26.14 with sidereal Sabik at Scorpio 24.16 and sidereal Spiculum at Scorpio 26.57. However Spiculum's tropical longitude is listed in my program at Sagittarius 20.17 which Anne Wright lists as Atria at Sagittarius 20.54 -- so either my star program list is wrong (this is possible as programs can err) or Anne Wright is mistaken (which is possible but not likely as she tends to be meticulous). It may also be possible that whoever compiled the star catalogue I use confused 'Spiculum' with 'Triangulum.' Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > Do you know if this book is in print now? If not, suggest to Dave at > astroamerica.com that he might print it. The book is called 'Complete Method of Prediction (From Genethliac Astrology According to the Western Systems)' by Robert de Luce (1935). It is available from John Ballantrae at Ballantrae Reprint: http://www.globalserve.net/~ballantrae/abcbc.htm It is to my knowledge the first astrological text to discuss solar arcs (which de Luce calls 'equatorial arcs'). It is written from a Tropical perspective - but De Luce eventually went on to become an accomplished siderealist and Vedic astrologer. Andrew 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.