A Study about Egyptian Bounds

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

here's a new study about Egyptian bounds (an old Hellenistic techinque)

where different ayanamsas and zodiacs are compared. The premise is that the

" true " ayanamsa or zodiac gives the biggest difference or biggest effect

when samples are compared to random control groups. One ayanamsa stood out

and it was Fagan/Bradley. But is the difference big enough, that is your

decision. This time it's not about too small samples, I can quarantee that.

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Egyptian_Bounds.htm

 

Enjoy,

 

Sari

[Guest guest]

At 03:40 PM 6/18/08 +0300, Sari wrote:

>Hi all,

>

>here's a new study about Egyptian bounds (an old Hellenistic techinque)

>where different ayanamsas and zodiacs are compared. The premise is that the

> " true " ayanamsa or zodiac gives the biggest difference or biggest effect

>when samples are compared to random control groups. One ayanamsa stood out

>and it was Fagan/Bradley. But is the difference big enough, that is your

>decision. This time it's not about too small samples, I can quarantee that.

>http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Egyptian_Bounds.htm

 

Hi Sari,

 

Thanks for this extensive study. We do need a lot of research on the

bounds. I'll note my comments below. I can't print the graphs since they go

across the screen, so I'm working from what I can see on the screen at one

time. I also have meant to reply to two of your past posts, but have not

been able to find the time.

 

Comments:

---------

 

(1) I cannot comment on your methods, as I've been out of the statistics

loop for too long. But I am not sure how significant it is to consider all

planets in all bounds at the same time. Would it be more important, say, to

consider only Jupiter and the Moon for Politicians, for example? Or only

the ascendant lord or only the Moon? Or only the ruler of a particular

house? Or only Mercury for computer programmers? I can't answer these

questions since I haven't studied the bounds.

 

(2) It seems odd that politicians would have a minus value for Jupiter and

a plus value for Venus, since this goes against the Gauquelin findings.

(Fagan-Bradley) Lahiri and Krisnamurti--high Venus.

 

(3) From what I have been able to see on-screen, the results seem to be

inconsistent between ayanamsas. One will give a high value to one planet

while another will give a high value to another planet in any one group.

 

(4) What does how up, however, is that there is evidence for the bounds

working in the sidereal, but not in the tropical. Actually, most of the

tropical graphs make no sense at all.

 

(5) The other piece of support for ayanamsas is in your summary graph where

the three highest values go to Fagan-Bradley, Lahiri and Krishnamurti. This

agrees with the planetary positions in the oldest horoscopes on record

which show values that hover between Fagan-Bradley and Lahiri/Krishnamurti.

 

Thanks for your work, Sari, which must have taken a great deal of time. As

you know, I work in smaller compartments, so cannot compare my findings to

yours.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Hi Therese and thanks for your comments,

 

you wrote:

 

> (1) I cannot comment on your methods, as I've been out of the statistics

> loop for too long. But I am not sure how significant it is to consider all

> planets in all bounds at the same time. Would it be more important, say,

> to

> consider only Jupiter and the Moon for Politicians, for example? Or only

> the ascendant lord or only the Moon? Or only the ruler of a particular

> house? Or only Mercury for computer programmers?

 

- That would be one option, but I think it's best to work without any

previous pre-expectations about how planets should behave. And then I think

it's best to have as pure concepts as possible. If I studied Mercury in

bounds, that would have two concepts already: the bounds and Mercury. How

could I know which result comes from which? When we're studying any planet

in the bounds, then we hopefully get the effect of the bounds more clearly.

And of course, when we're studying seven planets, not only one, our sample

sizes grow noticeably and that's usually an asset in statistical study.

 

You wrote:

 

> (2) It seems odd that politicians would have a minus value for Jupiter and

> a plus value for Venus, since this goes against the Gauquelin findings.

> (Fagan-Bradley) Lahiri and Krisnamurti--high Venus.

 

Sari:

 

I would approach the Gauquelin results with some caution. Geoffrey Dean has

shown that their data featured absence of births in certain dates that were

found to be unlucky in the popular calendars of those days. Equally there

was more births than could be expected in the " lucky " days. The " unlucky

days " had " casted out " births to the surrounding days, and the " lucky days "

had " sucked " births from the surrounding days. And what's more important,

the samples that showed more distortion gave bigger Gauquelin effects (not

smaller which would be the case with a genuine astrological effect)!

 

Of course we can have many opinions about Dean's claims, but personally I've

found the Gauquelin resuls quite problematic in the astrological sense.

First, the strong areas are ones that are traditionally considered as weak

(cadent houses). Secondly, his description about Jupiter does not resemble

the modest, kind, honest, pious and righteous Jupiter we encounter in the

old astrological texts (also in Jyotish), neither is Saturn quite the same.

So I've ceased to lean on Gauquelin in what the planets should be like.

>

> (3) From what I have been able to see on-screen, the results seem to be

> inconsistent between ayanamsas. One will give a high value to one planet

> while another will give a high value to another planet in any one group.

 

- Statistical study is like that, unfortunately. If it gave perfectly

logical results, astrology would have been proven long ago ( .

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

we've made a new, more readable and printable layout for the Egyptian bounds

study, and corrected a few minor calculation errors that didn't affect the

end result (much).

 

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Egyptian_Bounds.htm

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

At 07:19 PM 6/26/08 +0300, Sari wrote:

 

>we've made a new, more readable and printable layout for the Egyptian bounds

>study, and corrected a few minor calculation errors that didn't affect the

>end result (much).

>

>http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Egyptian_Bounds.htm

 

Thanks, Sari. Much easier to read and see the graphs!

 

Therese