Digest Number 418

[Guest guest]

-

 

 

Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:48 AM

Digest Number 418

 

 

> Message: 1

> Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:09:40 -0000

> " Ed Kohout " <crumpo

> Re: Astrology Websites

>

> , " Jack S. Contreras " <sidereal@c...>

> wrote:

> > Greetings,

> > I have updated the Mission Astrology Group (MAG) website some what.

> > http://users.cwnet.com/~sidereal/mag/mag.html

>

> Hi Jack,

>

> I checked out the page on exaltations, and was wondering why the Node

> was exalted at 1 Aries, when almost all sources say 3 Sag.

>

> http://users.cwnet.com/~sidereal/mag/exalts.html

>

> Thanks,

> Ed Kohout

>

>

 

The degrees of exaltations come from where?

The source:

Cyril Fagan's research on the Babylonian Zodiac, which was sidereal (the

sky), the Hypsomata, the new years chart of 786 BC.

In this year all the planets were in their degree's of exaltation

heliacally, Pluto's degree is only approximate.

Since these degrees are sidereal they will be the same in 786 BC as in 2002

AD.

Tropical is a different story. If all other sources kindly borrowed the

degrees and tropicalized them, they are all in error. Precession has moved

tropical degrees ahead 24 degrees in reference to the sky from 221 to 2002

AD.

 

Now, what was the source of the Node being at 3 Sag and which zodiac?

 

 

> > Jack Sirildo Contreras

> > Western Sidereal Astrologer

[Guest guest]

, " Jack S. Contreras " <sidereal@c...>

wrote:

>

> -

>

>

> Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:48 AM

> Digest Number 418

>

>

> > Message: 1

> > Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:09:40 -0000

> > " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...>

> > Re: Astrology Websites

> >

> > , " Jack S. Contreras "

<sidereal@c...>

> > wrote:

> > > Greetings,

> > > I have updated the Mission Astrology Group (MAG) website some

what.

> > > http://users.cwnet.com/~sidereal/mag/mag.html

> >

> > Hi Jack,

> >

> > I checked out the page on exaltations, and was wondering why the

Node

> > was exalted at 1 Aries, when almost all sources say 3 Sag.

> >

> > http://users.cwnet.com/~sidereal/mag/exalts.html

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Ed Kohout

> >

> >

>

> The degrees of exaltations come from where?

> The source:

> Cyril Fagan's research on the Babylonian Zodiac, which was sidereal

(the

> sky), the Hypsomata, the new years chart of 786 BC.

> In this year all the planets were in their degree's of exaltation

> heliacally, Pluto's degree is only approximate.

 

Hi Jack,

 

The outer three [uR,NE,PL] were not only unknown to the Babyolnians,

they are also dark and have no such thing as a " heliacal rising, " so

assigning them values seems a moot point, to me at least.

 

 

 

 

 

> Since these degrees are sidereal they will be the

> same in 786 BC as in 2002 AD.

> Tropical is a different story. If all other sources

> kindly borrowed the degrees and tropicalized them,

> they are all in error.

 

On this i surely agree!

 

 

> Precession has moved

> tropical degrees ahead 24 degrees in reference to

> the sky from 221 to 2002 AD.

>

> Now, what was the source of the Node being at 3 Sag and which

zodiac?

 

This question is rather loaded, as all zodiacs were essentially

sidereal in the 8th C BCE, and for some time after that, and then

there were different sidereals in use depending upon where one might

live. In the 8th C BCE, the classic 12-sign zodiac was still years

away.

 

If your definition of the exaltation is so strict, then how can the

nodes, which are not planets and also invisible, have a heliacal

rising in the first place? Did Fagan simply insert them on his own

fiducial (0* Aries) because it was the first month of the calendar in

786 BC? If so, why is this in any way valid?

 

We see the nodal exaltations as 3* of GEM/SAG in early medieval Arab

texts, whereas such degrees are not listed by Ptolemy. It seems to

have something to do with being 3* away from Luna's exaltation.

 

Very best,

Ed Kohout