Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 At 08:28 AM 9/4/06 -0700, Christopher Kevill wrote: > >And while we're at it, Houck also used the meanings of the sidereal signs straight up without any interpretive blurring and fancy footwork as Therese would have it. Chris, we have a nice interchange going on this forum. See if you can refrain from sarcasm. As I've said often before, I'm only building on what Cyril Fagan and other early siderealists saw in Tropoical writing--that the tropical astrologers were sometimes observing underlying sidereal sign traits. Simple observaton and alignment with ruling planets, not 'fancy footwork.' >[Houck] believed sidereal Aries had typically Arian traits and was not some sort of crypto-Taurus. In his opinion, the tropical zodiac was simply wrong and a huge, embarrassing mistake for astrology. Rick made a gift to me of all of his books. Please point me to the references that indicate he used typical tropical traits for sidereal signs of the same name. Rick was wrong sometimes like all of us, but he always seemed to be right on with his political predictions. He was an expert when it came to politics. He was wrong about his own death date, however, though he wrote a book on the astrology of death. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Therese, Houck didn't make any explicit discussion of the signs because he naturally assumed tropical traits for sidereal signs of the same name -- just as the vast majority of sidereal astrologers do. We can still find evidence of this assumption througout his books. For example, on the section entitled, " Determing the True Ascendant " on pages 78-79 in Astrology of Death, he recommends Liz Greene's book on Saturn to his readers. Greene is a well known Western tropical astrologer. " What I heartily suggest is that the reader take the commentary from books such as these, and apply it directly to the Hindu signs and houses. I think you will be favorably impressed by the improved applicability. " Note the absence of any discussion of the 'slippage' of sign meanings. He clearly took sidereal Aries to have the same meanings as tropical Aries. He thought that the tropical zodiac starting point was wrong, but not the individual sign meanings. best, Chris therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 08:28 AM 9/4/06 -0700, Christopher Kevill wrote: > >And while we're at it, Houck also used the meanings of the sidereal signs straight up without any interpretive blurring and fancy footwork as Therese would have it. Chris, we have a nice interchange going on this forum. See if you can refrain from sarcasm. As I've said often before, I'm only building on what Cyril Fagan and other early siderealists saw in Tropoical writing--that the tropical astrologers were sometimes observing underlying sidereal sign traits. Simple observaton and alignment with ruling planets, not 'fancy footwork.' >[Houck] believed sidereal Aries had typically Arian traits and was not some sort of crypto-Taurus. In his opinion, the tropical zodiac was simply wrong and a huge, embarrassing mistake for astrology. Rick made a gift to me of all of his books. Please point me to the references that indicate he used typical tropical traits for sidereal signs of the same name. Rick was wrong sometimes like all of us, but he always seemed to be right on with his political predictions. He was an expert when it came to politics. He was wrong about his own death date, however, though he wrote a book on the astrology of death. Therese Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 At 12:14 PM 9/4/06 -0700, Chris wrote: > >Houck didn't make any explicit discussion of the signs because he naturally assumed tropical traits for sidereal signs of the same name -- just as the vast majority of sidereal astrologers do. Chris, I think you're assuming here. In the section on Hindu astrology in ASTROLOGY OF DEATH he discusses the zodiac, houses, house rulers, aspects, but he doesn't say anything about the signs. He especially felt that house lords were important. I would know if Rick thought very much about applying tropical meanings to sidereal signs of the same name because he and I corresponded extensively over time. >We can still find evidence of this assumption througout his books. For example, on the section entitled, " Determing the True Ascendant " on pages 78-79 in Astrology of Death, he recommends Liz Greene's book on Saturn to his readers. Greene is a well known Western tropical astrologer. I also quote extensively from Tropical authors and have most of Liz Green's books. Some are O.K., some not so good. (I assume at this point that you like the interpretations of the tropical signs in your horoscope, but not the sidereal ones.) >Note the absence of any discussion of the 'slippage' of sign meanings. He clearly took sidereal Aries to have the same meanings as tropical Aries. He thought that the tropical zodiac starting point was wrong, but not the individual sign meanings. Rick didn't really say one way or another how he interpreted zodiac signs, but instead emphasized the importance of planets in their home signs, debilitaton or exaltation. I just read that statement this morning in AofD, but don't have time to look it up again. I believe his words here and there on signs are open to intepretation. I'm wondering why you feel so strongly about zodiac signs, when we have thousands of charts at our fingertips now to research. This isn't a topic to argue. It's a topic to research. I don't talk about slippage. I talk about sign overlap. One area of the ecliptic can't have contradictory meanings. This is elementary logic. Your horoscope isn't public as far as I know, so I don't know what your Mercury is doing. But anyhow, it's best not to get personal on forums. Sari has given us some excellent examples of how Jupiter's sidereal signs work, and I've mentioned George Lucas, Gerald and Aries. Bettina has covered Aquarius, and Sari has added to her comments. So far you haven't given us concrete examples of what you believe to be true about signs. If you so firmly believe that sidereal signs express exactly the same as tropical signs, then how about a few examples along with birth times so we can examine the charts? Stelliums in signs are the best examples. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Therese, My point is that you can't find any place where Houck espoused views of overlapping signs. On the contrary, you can find numerous places where he reaffirms the standard view as I have shown. And since it is the standard view amongst over 90% of sidereal and Vedic astrologers, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. So, yes, by all means, do the research. Chris , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > At 12:14 PM 9/4/06 -0700, Chris wrote: > > > >Houck didn't make any explicit discussion of the signs because he > naturally assumed tropical traits for sidereal signs of the same name -- > just as the vast majority of sidereal astrologers do. > > Chris, I think you're assuming here. In the section on Hindu astrology in > ASTROLOGY OF DEATH he discusses the zodiac, houses, house rulers, aspects, > but he doesn't say anything about the signs. He especially felt that house > lords were important. I would know if Rick thought very much about applying > tropical meanings to sidereal signs of the same name because he and I > corresponded extensively over time. > > >We can still find evidence of this assumption througout his books. For > example, on the section entitled, " Determing the True Ascendant " on pages > 78-79 in Astrology of Death, he recommends Liz Greene's book on Saturn to > his readers. Greene is a well known Western tropical astrologer. > > I also quote extensively from Tropical authors and have most of Liz Green's > books. Some are O.K., some not so good. (I assume at this point that you > like the interpretations of the tropical signs in your horoscope, but not > the sidereal ones.) > > >Note the absence of any discussion of the 'slippage' of sign meanings. He > clearly took sidereal Aries to have the same meanings as tropical Aries. > He thought that the tropical zodiac starting point was wrong, but not the > individual sign meanings. > > Rick didn't really say one way or another how he interpreted zodiac signs, > but instead emphasized the importance of planets in their home signs, > debilitaton or exaltation. I just read that statement this morning in AofD, > but don't have time to look it up again. I believe his words here and there > on signs are open to intepretation. I'm wondering why you feel so strongly > about zodiac signs, when we have thousands of charts at our fingertips now > to research. This isn't a topic to argue. It's a topic to research. > > I don't talk about slippage. I talk about sign overlap. One area of the > ecliptic can't have contradictory meanings. This is elementary logic. Your > horoscope isn't public as far as I know, so I don't know what your Mercury > is doing. But anyhow, it's best not to get personal on forums. > > Sari has given us some excellent examples of how Jupiter's sidereal signs > work, and I've mentioned George Lucas, Gerald and Aries. Bettina has > covered Aquarius, and Sari has added to her comments. So far you haven't > given us concrete examples of what you believe to be true about signs. > > If you so firmly believe that sidereal signs express exactly the same as > tropical signs, then how about a few examples along with birth times so we > can examine the charts? Stelliums in signs are the best examples. > > Therese > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.