San Francisco Fire & Quake (Response)

[Guest guest]

At 10:45 PM 1/25/04 -0000, Matthew wrote:

>[MQ] Although I have not studied Jyotish as extensively as you have,

>Therese, I thought that Mars made the 8th house aspect/quincunx and

>other planets did not, or at least not at any level like the strength

>of Mars 8th???

 

Remember, I go way back!! I remember my Tropical training and the 'finger

of God' aspect. Yes, Jyotish calls the quincunx the '8th house aspect' and

it belongs to Mars. It's given 50 percent strength (or therabouts) with the

other planets depending on which author you read. However, since I noticed

an abundance of 150 degree aspects in the quake charts involving the

angles, I've elevated the inconjunct to a major aspect for the earthquake

study.

 

This is why I don't use the sesquiquadrate, because it's 135 degrees and

too close to the quinxunx. So I allow larger orbs for the quincunx. (In

Jyotish the 150 degree aspect only goes one way. A planet aspects a planet

8 signs from itself, but the other planet doesn't aspect 6 signs from

itself.) Eventually we'll lose the distinction between astrological systems

and we'll be left with what works. And that includes one zodiac--I hope!

 

If you think about it, the quinxunx is the 'inconjunct,' and that pretty

well describes what happens in earthquakes. Parts of the earth move in

friction to other parts and everything is jarred out of place. This is how

the quincunx operates in charts between two individuals. There's a total

lack of understanding and sympathy.

 

>[MQ] I don't think it's particularly necessary for an ingress

>configuration to aspect the event chart angles, or vice versa,

 

[TH] But Matthew, this is the constant I found in the ingress/event charts

in the quakes I've studied so far. And if it's a constant, then it's

definitely going to be important. (This hinges on the ayanamsa, of

course....) We have to enter research with totally open minds and be

prepared for what we find. This is how I discovered the importance of the

quinxunx in the quake charts. We can begin research with theories, but some

of those theories are going to go out the window as work progresses.

 

> [MQ] as the

>event comes after the ingress, semantically speaking. What I think is

>important is that the ingress' angular planets *describe* the event

>in appropriate planetary symbolism.

 

[TH] We may have theories on what is appropriate planetary symbolism, but

we have to let the charts tell us what is really happening. We don't really

know until we study a cross section of charts. If there are no constants,

then there are no real earthquake charts. But, yes, I agree--the planets

near angles or aspecting angles in the ingress charts should describe the

event. I prefer to see a planet near an angle that receives the aspects of

other planets.

 

Near an angle...nature isn't too exact here, as we see there was a fairly

wide orb in the Loma Prieta quake chart between Uranus and the MC. Another

reason that I prefer few aspects with wider orbs.

 

[MQ] Many different combinations can

>do this. The same applies to quotidian angles: do the tightly angular

>planets *describe* the event?

 

[TH] 'Tightly angular' planets is a sidereal concept. Again, we have to let

the charts speak for themselves. If there can be a fairly wide orb between

Uranus and the MC in the Loma Prieta chart, then we have to be careful how

tight we think the orbs should be. I do like to see close orbs, yes, but

that doesn't always happen.

 

>[MQ] As I said in my previous post, I feel that the lunar ingresses

>are important tools as well as the solar ingresses. They complement

>each other. The 13 CapLunars each year help to get the narrower time

>view.

 

[TH] It makes more sense to use the 12 solar ingress charts, since the

importance of the CapLunar can be debated, despite Bradley's research. And

it looks like we're never going to see that research.

 

[MQ] Following through with the other cardinal solunar ingresses can

>narrow an event further. Quotidians narrow further.

 

[TH] For research you can't begin with so many factors. They will all blend

together and you won't be able to see if a single type of chart has value.

I have to fall back here on my professional research training with his

approach. Astrologers generally don't have that training--and what do we

have to show for it? Almost nothing in all these years astrologers have

been casting and studying millions of horoscopes. No one agrees on much of

anything because no one has done any decent research that is right out

there and can be replicated. (I'm talking about the research of

astrologers, not professionals like the Gauquelins.)

 

>[MQ] Don't get me wrong here; I'm not saying it's a perfect set up, and

>it's certainly not easy to *predict* with any of the mundane methods.

 

[TH] We may be able to find something that can be used for prediction if we

begin with simple concepts and only later work up to the complex

interaction of charts.

 

>[MQ] I feel the lack of predictive strength comes from the usual

>siderealist penchant for debating and haggling over " techie " points

>like quotidian rates and not simply using a forum for saying " Hey,

>these charts point to something happening somewhere around this date.

>Anyone else have any input? "

 

[TH] Yes,that's the way it should be.

 

>[MQ] I would look at this the other way around -- transit/event Moon

>conjoining the Q1 Moon. Different perspective. And it would certainly

>be nice for the transit Moon to be a " trigger, " but I haven't seen it

>so with any consistency.

 

[TH] I have to pretty much sit back and study the quotidians as I've never

used them. But I do think the earthquake chart itself can be viewed as a

transit to the ingress chart because the ingress is a 'birth,' isn't it?

And Bradley was very fond of the Moon. Any constants in relation to the

Moon itself in ingress charts should be considered important.

 

I'd prefer to save the lunar charts, but if they're discussed, I'd like to

see the discussion in separate posts. If we start mixing solar and lunar

ingresses at the onset, we're going to have a very mixed up stew. It's

confusing enough comparing two ayanamsas.

 

>[MQ] Again, as I said above, I don't see the necessity of the

>*identical* pattern repeating.

 

[TH] You 'don't see the need....' What you or I see the need of isn't that

important. What matters is what is consistent among the charts. I've see

plenty of consistency with overlapping angles and key planets in the K

ingress charts. I'll comment on this after we've done the first four charts.

 

[MQ] No major event is simple in its impact

>on a population. While the Quake itself may be Uranus-Neptune, the

>impact was certainly felt as Mars-Pluto-Saturn. With the tears that

>Venus-Saturn often indicate.

 

[TH] But if the perameters are this broad, then why study anything? Any

chart can be made to fit any event, at least in relation to the chart angles.

 

>In looking back over my responses in this post, I've noticed my

>tendency to emphasize language/semantics, perhaps as indicators of

>differing perspectives. Not surprising with my Leo Sun-Mercury

>conjunction square Saturn-Uranus and a Gemini Moon, and history as an

>English major and short-time high school English teacher. So I think

>I'll close this with a " pet peeve " , not just for Therese, but for the

>entire astrological community: planets make " conjunctions " . The verb

>form is " conjoin " or " conjoins, " not " conjuncts. " Now I know all

>about " common usage, " and all that, but, as I said, it's a " pet

>peeve. "

 

[TH} I'm all in favor of the correct use of the English language! You can

correct me anytime. What drives me crazy in some Jyotish books when

conjunctions are discussed is when the author writes, " Saturn is conjunct

*with* Venus... " So it's proper to say... " Saturn conjoins Venus... " Right?

Lesson learned.

 

Sincerely,

Therese