Fixed Stars?

[Guest guest]

Can anyone please explain the significance of fixed stars? I know what

mine is and its major qualities, but don't understand how this affects me.

 

Thank you very much.

[Guest guest]

At 01:19 PM 12/29/05 -0000, lpbfhll wrote:

 

>Can anyone please explain the significance of fixed stars? I know what

>mine is and its major qualities, but don't understand how this affects me.

 

Hi...

 

Your question is too vague for a good reply. Are you asking about a single

fixed star in your chart that is near a planet? Several stars? Are you

asking about the sidereal signs which are pegged to the stars? If you're

interested only in the stars as such, there's an excellent web site that

lists meanings for over 300 stars from the major star authors. These

meanings may or may not be accurate since the stars are mainly an

unexplored area as far as research goes.

 

Do a search for 'Anne Wright fixed stars' and the site will come up. Sorry,

I don't have the full URL at hand.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

At 03:09 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:

>Are you asking about a single fixed star in your chart that is near

>a planet? Several stars? Are you asking about the sidereal signs

>which are pegged to the stars?

 

The fixed star in my chart is Al Schemali (and I understand its

strengths and attributes). What I can't seem to grasp is how any of

these qualities relate to me. In other words, am I supposed to

possess any of the know qualities in my chart? If not, how is my

fixed star supposed to affect me?

 

Thank you very much!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 04:28 PM 12/29/05 -0500, lpbfhll wrote:

>The fixed star in my chart is Al Schemali (and I understand its

>strengths and attributes). What I can't seem to grasp is how any of

>these qualities relate to me. In other words, am I supposed to

>possess any of the know qualities in my chart? If not, how is my

>fixed star supposed to affect me?

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

 

All fixed stars in anyone's horoscope are not created equal. Every day,

except for the Moon and ascendant, everyone will have the same fixed stars

with their planets. It stands to reason that a star within one degree of

the Moon would theoretically be the most important star. The same might be

said to be true of stars within a degree of the ascendant.

 

A star may refer only to the house ruled by the planet near the star. Thus,

say if Venus is lord of the 7th, and a star is with Venus, it may relate to

the wife or lover but not to the owner of the horoscope. It may also be

that the only stars that matter are with planets near an equal house cusp

because those are the 'active' planets in a chart.

 

I personally question many of the meanings of stars in the textbooks. The

best approach is to study many charts and events in relation to the stars.

Diana Rosenberg has accumulated a huge mass of information on the stars,

but there is so much information there that it's difficult to sort it all out.

 

So many questions and so much we have yet to learn!

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

The fixed *stars* with very tight orbs as usually taught, seem rather élitist,

giving their full light to the famous and infamous while mostly withholding from

all the little lamps under a bushel.

 

The chief disadvantage, to my thinking, of this vacuum cleaner suck up

everything

approach is that it finds anything everywhere. I don't have the workbook but

wonder with the number of *stars* that the word " flood " might turn up under...we

should all be awash.

 

Dark*Star

________________________________

 

therese hamilton wrote:

 

> All fixed stars in anyone's horoscope are not created equal. Every day,

> except for the Moon and ascendant, everyone will have the same fixed stars

> with their planets.

 

> I personally question many of the meanings of stars in the textbooks. The

> best approach is to study many charts and events in relation to the stars.

> Diana Rosenberg has accumulated a huge mass of information on the stars,

> but there is so much information there that it's difficult to sort it all out.

>

[Guest guest]

> The fixed star in my chart is Al Schemali (and I understand its

> strengths and attributes). What I can't seem to grasp is how any

of

> these qualities relate to me. In other words, am I supposed to

> possess any of the know qualities in my chart? If not, how is my

> fixed star supposed to affect me?

>

 

that star has significant north latitude -- more by far than any

planet

(or the moon) except Pluto during an eighth of its cycle

 

it is meaningless to " interpret " stars without using latitude

 

the question is: what RAMC does the star rise, set, culminate,

anticulminate with? and are those RAMC's the same as a given chart's

(ie your birth chart's) ST?

 

if not, where on earth IS the star angular (it will be angular at four

points (actually, two lines each going across the globe,

making " four " lines on a flat map), plus an orb-zone of geographic

longitude around those lines -- roughly 4 degrees of longitude is one

good guess).

 

and: are the star's RAMCs at the angles the same as the correlating

rise/set or mc/ic of a planet at the birthplace? at the residence?

somewhere else? (it will ALWAYS be true " somewhere else " )

 

my advice: ignore what astrologers tell you until you are certain they

have a clue about something OTHER THAN the zodiac

 

ps if you don't know the non-zodiac method (the only one that makes

sense), post the star's right ascension amd declination, and the

longitude and latitude of your birthplace, plus your birth date/time

[Guest guest]

, " fimtinnegan "

<kh1100@n...> wrote:

>

> that star has significant north latitude -- more by far than any

> planet (or the moon) except Pluto during an eighth of its cycle it

is meaningless to " interpret " stars without using latitude

> the question is: what RAMC does the star rise, set, culminate,

> anticulminate with? and are those RAMC's the same as a given chart's

> (ie your birth chart's) ST?

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

 

There are two schools of thought on whether stars have influence via

their ecliptic longitiude or latitude/RAMC. The question is by no

means settled as yet. On one side are Ebertin, Diana Rosenberg, Anne

Wright, etc. and on the other side are Brady and those who agree with

her. This is another area of controversy just like the

tropical/sidereal zodiac question. The only honest answer is " We

don't know. "

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, " therese92003 "

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

>

> , " fimtinnegan "

> <kh1100@n...> wrote:

> >

> > that star has significant north latitude -- more by far than any

> > planet (or the moon) except Pluto during an eighth of its cycle

it

> is meaningless to " interpret " stars without using latitude

> > the question is: what RAMC does the star rise, set, culminate,

> > anticulminate with? and are those RAMC's the same as a given

chart's

> > (ie your birth chart's) ST?

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

>

> There are two schools of thought on whether stars have influence

via

> their ecliptic longitiude or latitude/RAMC. The question is by no

> means settled as yet. On one side are Ebertin, Diana Rosenberg,

Anne

> Wright, etc. and on the other side are Brady and those who agree

with

> her. This is another area of controversy just like the

> tropical/sidereal zodiac question. The only honest answer is " We

> don't know. "

>

> Therese

>

 

, " therese92003 "

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

>

> , " fimtinnegan "

> <kh1100@n...> wrote:

> >

> > that star has significant north latitude -- more by far than any

> > planet (or the moon) except Pluto during an eighth of its cycle

it

> is meaningless to " interpret " stars without using latitude

> > the question is: what RAMC does the star rise, set, culminate,

> > anticulminate with? and are those RAMC's the same as a given

chart's

> > (ie your birth chart's) ST?

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

>

> There are two schools of thought on whether stars have influence

via

> their ecliptic longitiude or latitude/RAMC. The question is by no

> means settled as yet. On one side are Ebertin, Diana Rosenberg,

Anne

> Wright, etc. and on the other side are Brady and those who agree

with

> her. This is another area of controversy just like the

> tropical/sidereal zodiac question. The only honest answer is " We

> don't know. "

>

> Therese

>

 

OK, given that stars are meaningful, they will be meaningful

objectively. Their meaning will not depend on a subjective and wholly

arbitrary preference; a preference rooted in the long-term trend of

astrologers being fixated upon the zodiac; a trend based not on first

principles of astrology, but only on what is fashionable; and, almost

all the time, based only on what astrologers happen arbitrarily to

know about; and excluding the areas of their ignorance, which include

almost every frame of reference outside of the convenient,

ephemeris/sun-sign-encouraged ecliptic and/or zodiac.

 

Just because astrologers are fixated on the zodiac, we insist the sky

should be too. But the sky is NOT -- no principle of astrology could

possibly justify thinking that the entire sky has any relationship to

THE EARTH'S TILT. Why would it? It. simply. does. not. make. sense.

 

Why would stars' positions be magically " relocated " to a position as

much as 90 degrees away (on average, 45!), onto a circle based

entirely on THE EARTH'S TILT? What on earth does the earth's tilt

have to do with the stars?

 

I can understand this in terms of moving bodies, given the

declination cycle (and the corresponding change from " straight "

astrocartography lines to " extremely curved " astrocartography

lines). Maybe, indeed, the earth's tilt is a good frame of reference

for solar system bodies -- though it probably isn't anything but a

good approximation, due to the fact that the most common solar system

bodies don't have huge latitude (the exceptions are comets and maybe

some Kuiper belt things and maybe some asteroids, though I don't

know; certainly not the lights and planets).

 

But the STARS? Why would they be " relocated " up to 90 degrees (and

ON AVERAGE 45 degrees)to a circle based on the earth's tilt?

 

The fact that " there are two schools of thought " with Ebertin, Diana

Rosenberg, Anne Wright, etc., accepting such an irrational, anti-

astrological idea -- what relevance does that have? It doesn't make

the idea any more rational in terms of astrological first principles,

defined at the most minimal level with the most minimal application

of simple thought. One " school of thought " is, simply, a school of

thoughtlessness. This is not dogmatism -- it's common sense.

 

Stars are not meaningful when measured in terms of the ecliptic

and/or the zodiac. They must be measured based on some other

reference system. (Astrocartography might be a useful point of

departure . . .)

 

Now -- schools of thought? It would be great if we had some ...

 

You're right -- we DON'T know. But we do know that some sort of

minimal level of thought is necessary to have useful ideas about

astrology. We wouldn't, for example, measure the stars based on,

say, the weather-vane on top of our house, or on a drawing of the sky

made by somebody's kid. See -- that. wouldn't. make. sense. We know

THAT. Asserting THAT would not be dogmatic, would not be closed-

minded, would not be dismissive of a school of " thought " that thought

otherwise.

 

HAVING some schools of thought about what frame of reference to use

for the stars -- once the silly ecliptic fixation is recognized as

being counterproductive in encouraging thought, schooled or

otherwise, about the stars -- would be an amazing and almost

unprecedented achievement.