Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 For those interested, here are Richard (Rick) Houck's own words on zodiac signs: " In my experience a strong " proof " of the sidereal zodiac is the cosistency and objectivity demonstrable power of its exaltation, rulership and fallen placement guidelines...For example, Venus in [tropical] Aries is supposedly a ‘detrimental placement being opposite the sign it rules.' Yet it is hard to speak badly of this Venus placement because, as a practical matter, people with this placement usually do very well with Venus-related matters...because Venus actually has a 75 percent chance of being exalted in sidereal Pisces. " **I'm not talking about states of mind or temperament that are subject to selective perception and soft interpretation.** I'm saying its beneficial function is clearly observable in their daily life by others around them. The same could be said of Venus in the first 25 degrees of tropical Scorpio, which is actually sidereal Libra, and many other similar combinations. " (pp 80-81, Astrology of Death) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So there you have it. (The asterisks above are mine.) Richard Houck is talking about planets in signs, observable circumstances that others can see. He apparently doesn't support a psychological interpretation of the signs, so it's not true that he applies tropical traits to the sidereal signs of the same name. I knew Rick for a number of years, and I know he was a precise technician. He interpreted charts on the basis of planetary strength and mathematical exactness, not on the basis of psychological traits of signs of the zodiac. It's doubtful that Rick would have assigned psychological traits to signs in either zodiac without a lifetime of research. P.S. I promised Rick shortly before his death that I would do the best I could to see that he was quoted correctly, and that his work remained alive to the astrological community. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Hi Therese, Yes, for me, when Venus is in 2° sidereal Scorpio, the proprieties are venusians, no Scorpio... I have realised a new site for to put an end to the tissue of lies tropicalists. http://www.astrologie-indosiderale.com/constellations.htm This site is french, but the zodiac and the natives are internationals! Kind regards. Patrice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 The tropical zodiac is quite viable. It is just another framework. Have a look at the Tropical Ingress of 0* Aries over London of March 21 1939 1:28 pm BST. This is the famous 'No War!' chart that all the English astrologers got wrong by predicting peace. _________________________________ Patrice wrote: > > I have realised a new site for to put an end to the tissue of lies > tropicalists. > > http://www.astrologie-indosiderale.com/constellations.htm > > This site is french, but the zodiac and the natives are > internationals! > > Kind regards. > > Patrice. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Therese, As we know, Rick liked to poke fun at astrologers who over-indulged in " psycho-babble " . He was quite right to note how hard it would be to prove personality or psychological traits conclusively. Who is really Aries? Who is really Taurus? How can you tell? As I said, one can find little comments here and there where he does make the commonplace assumption that sidereal Aries is really Aries not Taurus but obviously he wasn't the type of astrologer to go on at length about the significance of someone's sign placements. So on p 251 of Digital Astrology, he is discussing the recification of a chart. He says: " she is not at all the all-powerful, ego-asserting personality that a 41-bindu Leo 1st house (holding a stationary Pluto!) definitely would be... " I supppose one could argue that the Leo is an afterthought and not a key factor in the chart besides the bindus and the Pluto. But I see this as confirmation that although Rick didn't assign that much weight to signs, he still d the standard view of them. Having Leo in the first house still meant something to him, otherwise he wouldn't mention it. And the recitification showed that the native had sidereal Cancer rising, not Leo. This supports the standard view that Cancer rising has quintessentially Cancerian traits as opposed to Leo. In Astrology of Death (p 56), Houck introduces Hindu astrology to the western reader via an analysis of Jim Bakker's chart. " The important thing to note here is how this commentary flowed so easily and completely without regard to transits, progressions or any other considerations which would have brought in even much more precision and confirmation. And it is generally deducible form your current basic knowledge of Western planets, signs and houses. There can be some significant differences in house meanings, but I will try not to emphasize them as they will generally not be necessary for the narrow purpose of this book. " Note he only mentions houses as being different between the two systems. Signs are the same. In his discussion of Elvis Presley's recitification in Astrology of Death (p.142), Houck makes the case for Gemini rising and notes that his twin brother died at birth. Gemini still means twins. On p. 199 of Digital Astrology he is describing the chart of the husband of a client who is an acupuncturist: " Her husband has quite an excellent chart, and htis includes a stationary Venus in Libra in the 7th house (yes, the acupuncturist is really attractive). " Libra still is associated with beauty. Anyway, we are in agreement that Houck didn't place much weight on the sign meanings. Still, I feel these fragmentary comments were worthy of note and show that Houck adhered to the standard sidereal view of signs. best wishes, Chris therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: For those interested, here are Richard (Rick) Houck's own words on zodiac signs: " In my experience a strong " proof " of the sidereal zodiac is the cosistency and objectivity demonstrable power of its exaltation, rulership and fallen placement guidelines...For example, Venus in [tropical] Aries is supposedly a ‘detrimental placement being opposite the sign it rules.' Yet it is hard to speak badly of this Venus placement because, as a practical matter, people with this placement usually do very well with Venus-related matters...because Venus actually has a 75 percent chance of being exalted in sidereal Pisces. " **I'm not talking about states of mind or temperament that are subject to selective perception and soft interpretation.** I'm saying its beneficial function is clearly observable in their daily life by others around them. The same could be said of Venus in the first 25 degrees of tropical Scorpio, which is actually sidereal Libra, and many other similar combinations. " (pp 80-81, Astrology of Death) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So there you have it. (The asterisks above are mine.) Richard Houck is talking about planets in signs, observable circumstances that others can see. He apparently doesn't support a psychological interpretation of the signs, so it's not true that he applies tropical traits to the sidereal signs of the same name. I knew Rick for a number of years, and I know he was a precise technician. He interpreted charts on the basis of planetary strength and mathematical exactness, not on the basis of psychological traits of signs of the zodiac. It's doubtful that Rick would have assigned psychological traits to signs in either zodiac without a lifetime of research. P.S. I promised Rick shortly before his death that I would do the best I could to see that he was quoted correctly, and that his work remained alive to the astrological community. 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: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Hi Patrice Thanks for the site reference. Sad that it's in French, which only one or two members of this forum can read. Perhaps one day there might be an English translation? Therese At 06:58 AM 9/5/06 -0000, Patrice wrote: >Hi Therese, > >Yes, for me, when Venus is in 2° sidereal Scorpio, the proprieties are >venusians, no Scorpio... > >I have realised a new site for to put an end to the tissue of lies >tropicalists. > >http://www.astrologie-indosiderale.com/constellations.htm > >This site is french, but the zodiac and the natives are >internationals! 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.