An example: Sidereal versus Tropical- An addendum

[Guest guest]

Alfonso, putting a tab in the empty space between paragraphs will preserve

the space. This is a trick someone taught me long ago when we could go on

the internet in DOS mode. To get the space press <ENTER> <TAB, that is the

---> key> <ENTER> (three steps) when you want a new paragraph.

 

At 02:16 AM 4/27/03 -0000, you wrote:

> 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.

>

> But going back to the posting,what I am saying is that there is a

>PLACE for doing that, which is the tropical lists.

 

If there is no dialog between astrologers who use the different zodiacs,

then we (especially the Tropical astrologers) will never learn anything.

Yes, I read what you said. But I don't think long discussions help. The way

to discuss the zodiacs is to study the horoscopes of real people. Isn't

that why many of us changed from the Tropical to the Sidereal zodiac?

 

>This is one of the main reasons why this list is so static and very

>little dynamic. Practically no charts are analyzed here...

 

There is still the disagreement between western Sidereal and the Hindu

methods. They are very different and you won't find that western sidereal

astrologers (Fagan-Bradley school) want to look at the Hindu methods. So a

lot of dynamic can still be had by staying with the sidereal zodiac if

people are open-minded and willing to look at Hindu concepts as well as

solar and lunar return charts taught by Fagan-Bradley.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

This is ridiculous. I'm sick of hearning " tropical lists, " as if no

one can use sidereal in those lists! That is not the case. There

are no " tropical lists. " There is a " sidereal list " because someone

wanted to make one.

 

It is also absurd to boast that siderealists are more intellecutally

astute and curious than other astrologers, and therefore somehow of

greater value. That kind of reasoning is dangerous.

 

Finally, *zodiacs* are measuring devices, and nothing more. The

tropical system uses real nodes, and sidereal corrects for

precession. Proving which one works better by use of outmoded and

disproven " rulership " schemes drives me bananas. Rulerships should

be cast out of astrology for good, first by burning, and then by

drowning, and then by burying alive, and then by suffocating, so that

all of the elements are given a fair shake!

 

If Mars and Venus are square in your natal chart, they are square no

matter which damn zodiac you use.

 

Also, to ignore real cardinal points is to deny real mathematics, and

real work done by real people who have shown them to be viable points

in astrology.

 

To say that one must choose one zodiac over the other (and you did

too say that, Alfonso) is to present a false dilema, and false dilemas

are the bane of basic reasoning.

 

Similarly, no one on this list should have to think in only sidereal

terms just because Alfonso thinks it's a good idea. Alfonso needs to

take care of Alfonso, and leave the rest of us be ourselves.

 

Thanks,

Ed K

 

 

 

, " alfonsoosorio "

<alfonsoosorio> wrote:

 

 

 

 

> 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.

[Guest guest]

At 03:51 AM 4/27/03 -0000, Ed wrote:

>This is ridiculous. I'm sick of hearning " tropical lists, " as if no

>one can use sidereal in those lists! That is not the case. There

>are no " tropical lists. "

 

No, Ed, this isn't quite true. Anytime I post ANYTHING relating to the

sidereal on some of the lists (such as the NCGR list), it's met with total

silence. I've posted some really good comparison figures, but I suspect

that no one reads them. It would indeed be nice if someone would take up

zodiac discussions with an open mind.

 

>Finally, *zodiacs* are measuring devices, and nothing more.

 

Let's see if I can post something that will help refute that idea.

 

The

>tropical system uses real nodes, and sidereal corrects for

>precession. Proving which one works better by use of outmoded and

>disproven " rulership " schemes drives me bananas. Rulerships should

>be cast out of astrology for good, first by burning, and then by

>drowning, and then by burying alive, and then by suffocating, so that

>all of the elements are given a fair shake!

 

Too bad. I use rulerships quite successfully. But you are right that they

need to be demonstated. But I've laid low on this issue because you have

other current interests. I like an audience when I put a lot of effort into

something.

 

>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 the planets are in, they will express in different areas of life. (I

will look up this square in the Rodden/McDonough AstroDatabase.) I would

agree that the signs have no psychological meaning, however.

 

>Also, to ignore real cardinal points is to deny real mathematics, and

>real work done by real people who have shown them to be viable points

>in astrology.

 

How would you use the cardinal points in the horoscopes of individuals?

 

>To say that one must choose one zodiac over the other (and you did

>too say that, Alfonso) is to present a false dilema, and false dilemas

>are the bane of basic reasoning.

 

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.

 

>Similarly, no one on this list should have to think in only sidereal

>terms just because Alfonso thinks it's a good idea.

 

This I agree with. But sidereal astrologers are even more narrow minded

about their zodiac that the Tropical astrologers are about theirs.

 

Cheers!

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> At 03:51 AM 4/27/03 -0000, Ed wrote:

> >This is ridiculous. I'm sick of hearning " tropical lists, " as if

no

> >one can use sidereal in those lists! That is not the case. There

> >are no " tropical lists. "

>

> No, Ed, this isn't quite true. Anytime I post ANYTHING relating to

the

> sidereal on some of the lists (such as the NCGR list), it's met

with total

> silence.

 

That's because the NCGR is for old hags with banana peels for

brains. It's not my problem that they are morons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've posted some really good comparison figures, but I suspect

> that no one reads them. It would indeed be nice if someone would

take up

> zodiac discussions with an open mind.

 

Join ACT.

 

 

 

 

> >Finally, *zodiacs* are measuring devices, and nothing more.

>

> Let's see if I can post something that will help refute that idea.

>

> The

> >tropical system uses real nodes, and sidereal corrects for

> >precession. Proving which one works better by use of outmoded and

> >disproven " rulership " schemes drives me bananas. Rulerships

should

> >be cast out of astrology for good, first by burning, and then by

> >drowning, and then by burying alive, and then by suffocating, so

that

> >all of the elements are given a fair shake!

>

> Too bad. I use rulerships quite successfully. But you are right

that they

> need to be demonstated. But I've laid low on this issue because you

have

> other current interests. I like an audience when I put a lot of

effort into

> something.

 

No, what happened was that you were unable to demonstrate it

properly. 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. There is no magickal thin

line of character.

 

 

 

>

> >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 the planets are in, they will express in different areas of

life.

 

Well, how? This only makes sense in the Tropcial zod anyhow, becuase

we can show harmonic aspects to the cardinal points. The " cusps " of

sidereal signs are not based on any such rationale.

 

 

 

(I

> will look up this square in the Rodden/McDonough AstroDatabase.) I

would

> agree that the signs have no psychological meaning, however.

>

> >Also, to ignore real cardinal points is to deny real mathematics,

and

> >real work done by real people who have shown them to be viable

points

> >in astrology.

>

> How would you use the cardinal points in the horoscopes of

individuals?

 

How dare you ask such a question! Progressions, my dear! Also, if

midpoints fall on 0 Aries, we know of a mundane connexion.

 

 

 

 

 

>

> >To say that one must choose one zodiac over the other (and you did

> >too say that, Alfonso) is to present a false dilema, and false

dilemas

> >are the bane of basic reasoning.

>

> 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. "

 

 

 

 

 

>

> >Similarly, no one on this list should have to think in only

sidereal

> >terms just because Alfonso thinks it's a good idea.

>

> This I agree with. But sidereal astrologers are even more narrow

minded

> about their zodiac that the Tropical astrologers are about theirs.

>

> Cheers!

> Therese

 

I honestly know of no astrologer who uses Tropical and has such angst

against sidereal. I find this either/or stuff to be devolutionary.

 

 

Love you,

Ed K