1st house sign?

[Guest guest]

After reading a few of those text files, I'm left wondering which sign

is the ruler of the 1st house. Fagan states how Aries represents a

sleeping ram, and therefore should Threpresnt sunset (the Descendant)

making Libra the natural ruler of the first. ough later he refers to

Taurus being the ruler of the first. Now I'm confused, but Aries

ruling the 7th house of competition seems to make sense.

[Guest guest]

At 08:34 AM 10/23/05 -0000, Crystal wrote:

 

>After reading a few of those text files, I'm left wondering which sign

>is the ruler of the 1st house. Fagan states how Aries represents a

>sleeping ram, and therefore should Threpresnt sunset (the Descendant)

>making Libra the natural ruler of the first. ough later he refers to

>Taurus being the ruler of the first. Now I'm confused, but Aries

>ruling the 7th house of competition seems to make sense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Crystal,

 

I think it was Dark*Star who pointed out on one of the forums that Fagan

continually changed his mind about various astrological principles. At the

time he died he may not even have considered that Libra or Taurus as the

beginning of the zodiac or first house sign. The 7th was traditionally

always the house of marriage (Venus-ruled Libra), from way back when sign

astrology was born. The 6th was the house of enemies--all kinds of enemies.

 

Since the entire astrological world has settled on Aries as the first sign

of the zodiac, it would cause you less confusion to stay with that concept

for the time being.

 

Fagan wasn't perfect, but he was a brave and innovative thinker. Like the

rest of us, his mental meanderings may havae led him into blank walls now

and then.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

FWIW, Witte and the Hamburg School (Uranian) have always considered

Libra ruling the 1st house, and all of their 360 dials reflect that.

 

Isn't that right, Anny? -

 

 

, therese hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

>

> At 08:34 AM 10/23/05 -0000, Crystal wrote:

>

> >After reading a few of those text files, I'm left wondering which sign

> >is the ruler of the 1st house. Fagan states how Aries represents a

> >sleeping ram, and therefore should Threpresnt sunset (the Descendant)

> >making Libra the natural ruler of the first. ough later he refers to

> >Taurus being the ruler of the first. Now I'm confused, but Aries

> >ruling the 7th house of competition seems to make sense.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Crystal,

>

> I think it was Dark*Star who pointed out on one of the forums that Fagan

> continually changed his mind about various astrological principles.

At the

> time he died he may not even have considered that Libra or Taurus as the

> beginning of the zodiac or first house sign. The 7th was traditionally

> always the house of marriage (Venus-ruled Libra), from way back when

sign

> astrology was born. The 6th was the house of enemies--all kinds of

enemies.

>

> Since the entire astrological world has settled on Aries as the

first sign

> of the zodiac, it would cause you less confusion to stay with that

concept

> for the time being.

>

> Fagan wasn't perfect, but he was a brave and innovative thinker.

Like the

> rest of us, his mental meanderings may havae led him into blank

walls now

> and then.

>

> Therese

>

[Guest guest]

Fagan pointed out that Charubel in his Degrees of the Zodiac Symbolized (ca

1890), states his opinion that the Zodiac commenced at Libra 25. The sidereal

zodiac had not yet been discovered/invented. By the time Fagan adjusted that

degree by ayanamsa the result was Libra 0. The footnote is on page 29 of the

Aries Press edition.

 

Nothing has served male supremacy and pulled everything together better than

Aries as first point of the Zodiac. As that concept is being questioned (by

some) other constellations will become attractive to them. What came first in

most matters is often eclipsed by what becomes most useful later.

________________________________

 

therese hamilton wrote:

 

> At 08:34 AM 10/23/05 -0000, Crystal wrote:

>

> >After reading a few of those text files, I'm left wondering which sign

> >is the ruler of the 1st house. Fagan states how Aries represents a

> >sleeping ram, and therefore should Threpresnt sunset (the Descendant)

> >making Libra the natural ruler of the first. ough later he refers to

> >Taurus being the ruler of the first. Now I'm confused, but Aries

> >ruling the 7th house of competition seems to make sense.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Crystal,

>

> I think it was Dark*Star who pointed out on one of the forums that Fagan

> continually changed his mind about various astrological principles. At the

> time he died he may not even have considered that Libra or Taurus as the

> beginning of the zodiac or first house sign. The 7th was traditionally

> always the house of marriage (Venus-ruled Libra), from way back when sign

> astrology was born. The 6th was the house of enemies--all kinds of enemies.

>

> Since the entire astrological world has settled on Aries as the first sign

> of the zodiac, it would cause you less confusion to stay with that concept

> for the time being.

>

> Fagan wasn't perfect, but he was a brave and innovative thinker. Like the

> rest of us, his mental meanderings may havae led him into blank walls now

> and then.

>

> Therese

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

, " crystal97900 "

<crystal97900> wrote:

>

> After reading a few of those text files, I'm left wondering which

sign

> is the ruler of the 1st house.

 

No sign is the ruler of the first house.

 

The signs go counter-clockwise and refer to the ecliptic.

 

The houses go clockwise and refer to the earth's rotation -- and thus

also to its axis and its tilt (which in turn are wholly, absolutely,

emphatic-adverbly unrelated to the ecliptic).

 

Why even ask this question? Who decided that the signs and houses had

to correlate? Certainly astrology (that is, astronomy) did not. It

must have been astrologers who decided. Astrologers are not astrology -

- unless we wish to practice " astrologery " ... which most astrologers

do.

[Guest guest]

fimtinnegan <kh1100 wrote:

 

> , " crystal97900 "

> <crystal97900> wrote:

>unless we wish to practice " astrologery " ... which most astrologers do.

 

Which would be???

 

--

François

[Guest guest]

Francois Carriere wrote:

 

>fimtinnegan <kh1100 wrote:

>

>

>

>> , " crystal97900 "

>><crystal97900> wrote:

>>unless we wish to practice " astrologery " ... which most astrologers do.

>>

>>

>

>Which would be???

>

>

>

Good question

Which would be???

[Guest guest]

Astrology is based on astronomy.

 

Astrologery is based on whichever I-just-made-it-up-techniques Noel

Tyl et al. said at their last jam-packed lectures to the faithful

(like Tyl's theoretical progression formulas, just for starters ...

starters on an almost endless list of nonsense).

 

Void of course Moon ... how about that for a good example of

astrologery?

 

Or astrolocality (not astrocartography) Pluto-sextile-ascendant

lines ... how about that for a good example of astrologery?

 

Or Uranian planets ... how about that for a good example of

astrologery?

 

On and on and on and on. I can't believe you even have to ask,

Patrick and Bert. What I'm saying is simple: astrology vs. whatever

some astrologer makes up = astrology vs astrologery.

 

Philosophical relativism and open-mindedness (hwhich are good things)

do not excuse, in the context of astrology, techniques rooted nowhere

in astronomy -- such as the parallel between houses

(rotation/mundane/earth/clockwise) and signs

(revolution/ecliptic/sun/counterclockwise).

 

Astrologers make stuff up, century after century. Astronomy provides

clues to what is and isn't plausible.

 

Astrologery is whatever may be *easily* classified as " implausible "

in the context of first principles based on astronomy. If we want to

turn astrology into an oracle a la Tarot, phrenology, I Ching,

palmistry, numerology, runes, and the entrails of slaughtered

animals, fine. Otherwise, we have to fall back on the thing which is

unique to astronomy among all oracles: astronomy. The former is

astrologery. The latter is the basis for anything plausibly called

astrology.

[Guest guest]

Are you objecting here to Pluto sextiling ASCs or all planets sextiling

ASCs?

Do you want only hard aspects to the ASC, or not even that?

Skeletons are quite apropos this weekend :: but skeleton horoscopes?

________________________________

 

fimtinnegan wrote:

 

> Astrology is based on astronomy.

>

> Astrologery is based on whichever I-just-made-it-up-techniques Noel

> Tyl et al. said at their last jam-packed lectures to the faithful

> (like Tyl's theoretical progression formulas, just for starters ...

> starters on an almost endless list of nonsense).

>

> Void of course Moon ... how about that for a good example of

> astrologery?

>

> Or astrolocality (not astrocartography) Pluto-sextile-ascendant

> lines ... how about that for a good example of astrologery?

>

> Or Uranian planets ... how about that for a good example of

> astrologery?

>

> On and on and on and on. I can't believe you even have to ask,

> Patrick and Bert. What I'm saying is simple: astrology vs. whatever

> some astrologer makes up = astrology vs astrologery.

>

> Philosophical relativism and open-mindedness (hwhich are good things)

> do not excuse, in the context of astrology, techniques rooted nowhere

> in astronomy -- such as the parallel between houses

> (rotation/mundane/earth/clockwise) and signs

> (revolution/ecliptic/sun/counterclockwise).

>

> Astrologers make stuff up, century after century. Astronomy provides

> clues to what is and isn't plausible.

>

> Astrologery is whatever may be *easily* classified as " implausible "

> in the context of first principles based on astronomy. If we want to

> turn astrology into an oracle a la Tarot, phrenology, I Ching,

> palmistry, numerology, runes, and the entrails of slaughtered

> animals, fine. Otherwise, we have to fall back on the thing which is

> unique to astronomy among all oracles: astronomy. The former is

> astrologery. The latter is the basis for anything plausibly called

> astrology.

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

 

> Are you objecting here to Pluto sextiling ASCs or all planets

sextiling

> ASCs?

> Do you want only hard aspects to the ASC, or not even that?

 

what on earth does it mean for any planet to be in any kind of

ECLIPTICAL aspect to the ascendant? no one can answer this

 

so the aspect would have to be non-ecliptical ... and at that moment

you are squarely in the middle of every house-division debate in

history, because house division is nothing but -- is exactly the same

as -- defining aspects of one-third the division between each adjacent

pair of angles

 

so, right -- no aspects to the angles

 

think about it

[Guest guest]

, " fimtinnegan " <kh1100@n...>

wrote: (snip) so, right -- no aspects to the angles think about it

>

REPLY:

I've used Fagan's PSSR methodology, actual precession-corrected

versions, for several decades now. I use planets-at-the-angles and

planets-to-planets (squares, oppositions and parans) when one/both are

near the angle. This is based on the premis that angular zones lend

greater power to planetary expression.

 

However, unlike the few others that I have talked to, I also use the

progressed (at 1.25 degrees +/- rate) angles and have found the angles

to have interpretive meaning when contacting planets and natal angles

as well as the solar return angles.

 

I also use an equal-arc feature wherein I take the ASC to MC angle and

project it towards the Descendant area from the MC. I have called

this a " co-descendant " but its designation is immaterial. It observed

effects are important -- it seems to represent a " place " where someone

can walk into your chart/life uninvited and mess around. Concept wise

this is based on reversing the ASC meaning of expressing/experiencing

your life and goals to mean others expressing themselves in your life.

 

So, I don't find any problems with your idea of not including aspects

to the angles or the ASC in particular. I just look for when the

angle comes into contact with a planet -- this is where the energy

seems to be released.

[Guest guest]

Im thinking I'm thinking that a rampant minimalism is eating out the

innards of sidereal astrology.

 

Schwarzenegger's stunning loss in California yesterday was predicted on the

square of his natal Nodes against progressed ASC (00-05.) Why give up all

this stuff that helps read? It is masochism.

 

Dark*Star

________________________________

 

fimtinnegan wrote:

 

> , Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

> wrote:

>

> > Are you objecting here to Pluto sextiling ASCs or all planets

> sextiling

> > ASCs?

> > Do you want only hard aspects to the ASC, or not even that?

>

> what on earth does it mean for any planet to be in any kind of

> ECLIPTICAL aspect to the ascendant? no one can answer this

>

> so the aspect would have to be non-ecliptical ... and at that moment

> you are squarely in the middle of every house-division debate in

> history, because house division is nothing but -- is exactly the same

> as -- defining aspects of one-third the division between each adjacent

> pair of angles

>

> so, right -- no aspects to the angles

>

> think about it

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

of course, conjunctions to the angles are fine -- I forgot that

conjunctions are considered an " aspect "

 

conjunction = same RAMC at that angle

[Guest guest]

, " fimtinnegan " <kh1100@n...>

wrote: of course, conjunctions to the angles are fine -- I forgot

that conjunctions are considered an " aspect " conjunction = same RAMC

at that angle

>

REPLY:

Yes, the planets have the engergy or expressional characteristics that

we have observed for so many centuries. I wonder if its fruitful to

speculate on what it is about the earth's rotation and daily cycle

that seems to shape a planet's energy in one way or the other -- in

other words why does the ASC, MC, etc., affect the manner in which a

planet seems to act through us?

 

Are the angles empowered through the Sun's rising and culminating,

etc. as an " influence " on what the angles do or represent in the human

experience -- or even the planet's experience (we have to consider

natural events)? Or do we find that the " angles " seem to gain an

influence due to the natal order and timing of planets rising over the

horizon? Dave

[Guest guest]

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

>

>

> Im thinking I'm thinking that a rampant minimalism is eating out the

> innards of sidereal astrology.

>

> Schwarzenegger's stunning loss in California yesterday was

predicted on the

> square of his natal Nodes against progressed ASC (00-05.) Why give

up all

> this stuff that helps read? It is masochism.

 

It is " RAMPANT minimalism " to disregard the " square " from the " nodes "

to the " progressed ascendant " ?

 

Wow. That's a pretty maximalistic definition of minimalism.

 

By the way: progressed how? and at what location? And what exactly

ARE the nodes?

 

My guess is that, in anything but retrospect, this aspect would never

be noted -- and if it were, it would never be meaningful. One could

surely do better sticking to other rudiments. But conceivably the

nodes in conjunction to a progressed angle might be somewhat

meaningful, as indicating the approximate point of a recent

transiting new or full moon, with no moon-latitude, somewhere in the

neighborhood of a progressed angle. That IS worth looking at, though

still rather low on the indicator totem-pole as far as major events

go. As for the square of the nodes to the angles: that, if

anything, is a counter-indicator: the point squaring the nodes is

near where the moon has maximum latitude ... where the error in

mundane measurement (i.e., conjunction to an angle) is at its

greatest.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Unless otherwise indicated astrologers always mean:

Progressed = Secondary (P2)

Progressed location = Birth place*

The Nodes here represent Arnold's subjects. You don't think Arnold's a king? Ask

him!

 

* Location and residence, however, are sometimes useful. It was my progressions

from Teacapan, Mexico that brought me there to see the great eclipse of 1991

while birthplace was sleeping.

 

The rest of your post would indicate a major in astronomy, a minor in astrology.

Which ain't a bad thing, being what your chart requires at this time, this

place.

 

Dark*Star

_______________________________

 

fimtinnegan wrote:

 

> , Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

> wrote:

> > Schwarzenegger's stunning loss in California yesterday was

> predicted on the

> > square of his natal Nodes against progressed ASC (00-05.)

>

> By the way: progressed how? and at what location? And what exactly

> ARE the nodes?

>

> My guess is that, in anything but retrospect, this aspect would never

> be noted -- and if it were, it would never be meaningful. One could

> surely do better sticking to other rudiments. But conceivably the

> nodes in conjunction to a progressed angle might be somewhat

> meaningful, as indicating the approximate point of a recent

> transiting new or full moon, with no moon-latitude, somewhere in the

> neighborhood of a progressed angle. That IS worth looking at, though

> still rather low on the indicator totem-pole as far as major events

> go. As for the square of the nodes to the angles: that, if

> anything, is a counter-indicator: the point squaring the nodes is

> near where the moon has maximum latitude ... where the error in

> mundane measurement (i.e., conjunction to an angle) is at its

> greatest.

>

[Guest guest]

And I thought I had something when his locality

progressed demi-anlunar for shortly after noon

the day following the election when he would have

realized the results had been disseminated across

the nation, indeed around the world, had a RAMC of

185d 45m with transitting Pluto conjunct the

Ascendant and the midpoint of progressed natal

Sun/Neptune in Paran on the MC at 186d 07m.

 

bob

 

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

>

>

> Im thinking I'm thinking that a rampant minimalism is eating out the

> innards of sidereal astrology.

>

> Schwarzenegger's stunning loss in California yesterday was predicted

on the

> square of his natal Nodes against progressed ASC (00-05.) Why give

up all

> this stuff that helps read? It is masochism.

>

> Dark*Star

>

[Guest guest]

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

 

>

> Unless otherwise indicated astrologers always mean:

> Progressed = Secondary (P2)

 

not quite --

 

almost all the atrologers I've known, and almost all the astrology

book authors, progress PLANETS at a secondary rate, and then progress

ANGLES at a primary rate

 

if you are progressing angles at the rate of about one degree on the

midheaven per year, then you are not using secondary progression ==

you're using a form of primary progression

 

with secondary progression rates, the midheaven progresses about one

degree per day -- not per year

 

but I don't know which you're referring to, because astrologers

almost always and invariably mix the two up

[Guest guest]

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

>

>

> The rest of your post would indicate a major in astronomy, a minor

in astrology.

 

because I point out that the moon has maximum latitude midway between

(that is, squaring) its nodes?

 

does anybody reading this know what the word " node " means? if so --

is this really such a complicated concept?

 

the word " node " MEANS no latitude

 

for the moon or any planet or any anything: the word " node " MEANS no

latitude

 

so midway between the nodes -- squaring the nodes -- means maximum

latitude

 

no degree in astronomy necessary

[Guest guest]

I was using Solar Fire Secondary Progressions. Their technique for computing the

angles can be looked up in the Solar Fire manual, but not by me.

_________________________________

 

fimtinnegan wrote:

 

> , Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> > Unless otherwise indicated astrologers always mean:

> > Progressed = Secondary (P2)

>

> not quite --

>

> almost all the atrologers I've known, and almost all the astrology

> book authors, progress PLANETS at a secondary rate, and then progress

> ANGLES at a primary rate

>

> if you are progressing angles at the rate of about one degree on the

> midheaven per year, then you are not using secondary progression ==

> you're using a form of primary progression

>

> with secondary progression rates, the midheaven progresses about one

> degree per day -- not per year

>

> but I don't know which you're referring to, because astrologers

> almost always and invariably mix the two up

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

Most astrologers from Ebertin will know the Nodes to mean associations,

alliances, kindred, or in Arnold's case...subjects.

_________________________________

 

fimtinnegan wrote:

 

> , Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > The rest of your post would indicate a major in astronomy, a minor

> in astrology.

>

> because I point out that the moon has maximum latitude at its nodes?

>

> does anybody reading this know what the word " node " means? if so --

> is this really such a complicated concept?

>

> the word " node " MEANS no latitude

>

> for the moon or any planet or any anything: the word " node " MEANS no

> latitude

>

> so midway between the nodes -- squaring the nodes -- means maximum

> latitude

>

> no degree in astronomy necessary

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

 

I'm really glad there are so many techniques to ferret out an analysis in the

reading of charts. My chart requires the simplest possible, i.e., raw transits

to

the natal. This focused by the solar return must pull out a thread that

continues

throughout any return I can conjure up. A lunar can't say yes and its demi-lunar

no.

 

Dark*Star

_________________________________

 

bobnicewander wrote:

 

> And I thought I had something when his locality

> progressed demi-anlunar for shortly after noon

> the day following the election when he would have

> realized the results had been disseminated across

> the nation, indeed around the world, had a RAMC of

> 185d 45m with transitting Pluto conjunct the

> Ascendant and the midpoint of progressed natal

> Sun/Neptune in Paran on the MC at 186d 07m.

>

> bob

>

> , Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Im thinking I'm thinking that a rampant minimalism is eating out the

> > innards of sidereal astrology.

> >

> > Schwarzenegger's stunning loss in California yesterday was predicted

> on the

> > square of his natal Nodes against progressed ASC (00-05.) Why give

> up all

> > this stuff that helps read? It is masochism.

> >

> > Dark*Star

> >

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

needless to say, I was referring to the " meaning " of nodes as a way

to know whether the moon or a planet or some other solar system body

has no latitude, maximum latitude, or something in between

 

I would not dispute someone's definition of what nodes " mean " in

interpretation -- but then, few use anything but the moon's nodes

 

in context, it's clear I'm referring to the idea that it's a

complicated concept to realize that the moon has maximum latitude at

its square to its nodes, and so therefore has maximum error in its

ecliptical position relative to the angles

 

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

>

>

> Most astrologers from Ebertin will know the Nodes to mean

associations,

> alliances, kindred, or in Arnold's case...subjects.

> _________________________________

>

> fimtinnegan wrote:

>

> > , Dark Star

<pansophia@e...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > The rest of your post would indicate a major in astronomy, a

minor

> > in astrology.

> >

> > because I point out that the moon has maximum latitude at its

nodes?

> >

> > does anybody reading this know what the word " node " means? if

so --

> > is this really such a complicated concept?

> >

> > the word " node " MEANS no latitude

> >

> > for the moon or any planet or any anything: the word " node "

MEANS no

> > latitude

> >

> > so midway between the nodes -- squaring the nodes -- means maximum

> > latitude

> >

> > no degree in astronomy necessary

> >

> >

> > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -

----

> >

> > Post message:

> > Subscribe: -

> > Un: -

> > List owner: -owner

> >

> > Shortcut URL to this page:

> > /

> >