Dave: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs--George Bush

[Guest guest]

At 01:24 PM 1/9/09 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>Everyone sees the US President, G.W. Bush, on television and has taken

>in his personality and character over the past eight years. I have

>chosen his chart to start this comparison and discussion relative to

>the two zodiacs.

>

>...[followed by paragraphs on relevant aspects}

>

>Sidereal or Tropical expression:

>

>The SIDEREAL argument would note the patriotic and sensitive Cancer

>personality, and the persuasive speaking-from-the-heart approach that

>Bush takes in his speeches. The Gemini Sun would be seen as fitting

>with his superficial manner (as seen by some, many).

-------------------

 

Dave, I'm wondering if you really read my theory of the sidereal signs? I'm

wondering where you found the above traits since they sound like they're

taken from the tropical zodiac. After one posting on George Bush, which

mainly emphasized planetary aspects, you've concluded that signs aren't

worth your time.

 

I believe you said in earlier posts that you combined many ideas from

different sources in an attempt to grasp the meanings of sidereal signs.

How many of those ideas were based on sound or even unsound theory? What

were the sources of all those traits you gathered, and then apparently

decided to disregard without posting them?

 

You apparently spent several weeks or maybe two or three months gathering

sign material. I spent several *years* researching history and ideas before

writing my relatively brief theory of sidereal signs. I then gave examples

of those who had the ascendant lord and several planets in a single sign.

 

You chose a very difficult subject for your first attempt at delineating

signs. George Bush has his ascendant, Sun and Moon all in different signs

of the zodiac, and multiple aspects dilute the picture even more. In order

to even begin to understand signs we first have to find people with a

strong emphasis in one sign as I've done in my articles on zodiac theory.

 

{Dave wrote:]

>CONCLUSION: Based on the Sun and Ascendant, plus aspect-patterns to

>these two factors, the case can be made for either zodiac application.

 

[Dave wrote:]

>I'm still of the opinion, after all of the work I've

>done, that none of the signs are worth bothering with. I'm open to

>having my mind changed, but for now . . . no signs.

------------------

 

I must point out again, Dave, that you didn't give a theoretical framework

for the traits you listed for sidereal Gemini and Cancer. They seem to be

mainly transferred from tropical sources. (Some sidereal astrologers have

done just that: simply copied tropical traits.) Now our new president very

clearly expresses sidereal Capricorn concepts (based on sign polarity, the

Taurus trigon, and the mythology of Saturn).

 

We can expect these concepts to become apparent during his tenure if the

inaugural Capricorn stellium is a hint of what we can expect. [by the way,

in the months before the election, I didn't know whether to emphasize

Sun-Jupiter-Rahu (which I see as a Republican signature) or the huge

Capricorn stellium (Democratic) that includes those planets. I'm happy to

say that sidereal Capricorn easily won.]

 

Sometime today I'll try to post a few words on these concepts. They're

already outlined in articles on my web site, but not specifically applied

to Obama: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

All the key planets in Obama's chart are in sidereal female (or socially

interactive) signs. If anyone reads what I wrote several years ago on

sidereal theory, they will see clear sidereal concepts manifesting in

Obama's appraoch to life and personality.

 

Barack Obama:

-------------

Ascendant Capricorn:

Ascendant lord: Capricorn

Sun and Mercury: Cancer

Moon: Taurus

 

Best wishes,

Therese

[Guest guest]

For the List,

Therese had posted a question about my abandoning my work with the

George W. Bush chart and the sidereal sign meanings work I had been

doing. I had sent a private e-mail to Therese. She has asked me to

post that reply here so as to keep others up-to-date on my work. The

following is the e-mail I sent:

********

Therese, I did not abandon my work in investigating the SZ based on

George Bush's chart and Sun-Ascendant factors. There are several

issues in dropping the discussion at this point:

 

1) All of the two dozen or so study charts I had gathered had

numerous aspects from the Ascendant to planets, and a reasonable

number of aspects from the Sun to other planets. The only " clean "

charts that I've seen, so to speak, are those who aren't overly active

in society in terms of their accomplishments. Coach potatoes, so to

speak.

 

2) I have completed all twelve zodiac writeups. They include a

notation on the stars and their meanings in that sidereal sign, the

ruling and exalted planets, those planet's keywords, keywords assigned

to the Sun's characteristics in that sign, the Moon's characteristics

in that sign, the Ruler's keywords, the Exalted Planet's keywords,

Character traits for the sign, Attitude and perceptions of that sign,

feelings for that sign, actions often engaged in for that sign, social

interactions most typical for that sign, personal success in the life

of that sign, examples of career choices and famous people in that sign.

 

Upon doing that writing and reviewing it, and recognizing that it was

just a " mind dump " , I was not satisfied with the results. It was too

much like a Tropical explanation. Following a " process " like I did

was not the answer, for the Tropicalists would/could follow a similar

process. This was not the way to define a sector of space.

 

3) I've collected a lot of Sidereal information from many sources.

My present project is to map out the various paths, using timelines,

to see which countries, which schools of thought came into being

and/or practiced astrology in certain ways. At this point I see a

great deal of overlapping in " western " astrology up until the 1400's

when Ptolemy's writing became translated and the TZ became popular.

Prior to Kepler and this period, a great deal of Sidereal stuff was

evident. Then the Tropical Zodiac took over. I'm not expecting that

project to yield answers of which sector of space means what, but it

will give me a perspective of the development and usage of the two

zodiacs.

 

4) In other areas I'm reading rather well expressed opinions by

current astrologers on why one or the other zodiac is best. These

sets of views seem uncovincing. For example, the Tropicalists feels

that the signs are essentially " seasonal. " This falls apart when you

move to the southern hemisphere. Running charts from Austarlia up to

Japan, for example, along the same meridian will yield the same rising

sign---north or south of the equator. Doing this plainly illustrates

that any " seasonal " basis or influence just doesn't cut it. There

seems to be more arguments on each side of the debate. Perhaps I'll

uncover enough of them to satisfy my curiosity. Until then, the

practice of astrology doesn't seem to need " signs " to be workable and

useful.

 

Now, if your computer can handle large files of some 40 or so typed

pages, I can send you my writings on the Sidereal Zodiac. Consider

that I am not satisfied with them, that the effort was truly a " once

through " mind dump. You'll have to take them for what they are. It

might be nice to think that some day I'll have a good reason for

re-doing them. Dave

******

 

The above completes the e-mail message. Because the 40 or so pages of

my writing is too large a file size, I will post the first (ARIES)

section in the next post so that all can see the approach I have taken

and which I do not feel meets my expectations. Dave

[Guest guest]

David, I look forward to reading your findings as you post them. It must feel

very

frustrating for you to have worked so much on this project and to not be happy

with this

research.

Morgana

 

 

 

On

Behalf Of David Monroe

January-26-09 4:05 PM

 

Re: Dave: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs--George Bush

 

For the List,

Therese had posted a question about my abandoning my work with the

George W. Bush chart and the sidereal sign meanings work I had been

doing. I had sent a private e-mail to Therese. She has asked me to

post that reply here so as to keep others up-to-date on my work. The

following is the e-mail I sent:

********

 

The above completes the e-mail message. Because the 40 or so pages of

my writing is too large a file size, I will post the first (ARIES)

section in the next post so that all can see the approach I have taken

and which I do not feel meets my expectations. Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1916 - Release 26/01/2009

7:08 AM

[Guest guest]

At 12:04 AM 1/27/09 -0000, Dave wrote:

>For the List,

>Therese had posted a question about my abandoning my work with the

>George W. Bush chart and the sidereal sign meanings work I had been

>doing. I had sent a private e-mail to Therese. She has asked me to

>post that reply here so as to keep others up-to-date on my work. The

>following is the e-mail I sent:

>********

>(...)

>2) I have completed all twelve zodiac writeups. They include a

>notation on the stars and their meanings in that sidereal sign, the

>ruling and exalted planets, those planet's keywords, keywords assigned

>to the Sun's characteristics in that sign, the Moon's characteristics

>in that sign, the Ruler's keywords, the Exalted Planet's keywords,

>Character traits for the sign, Attitude and perceptions of that sign,

>feelings for that sign, actions often engaged in for that sign, social

>interactions most typical for that sign, personal success in the life

>of that sign, examples of career choices and famous people in that sign.

-----------------------

 

Thank you very much, Dave, for your post explaining where you're coming

from. I'll just reply to a few thoughts.

 

I think that the above paragraph highlights the problem of your

dissatisfaction. You've begun with an extremely comprehensive picture

before laying out some simple theory of zodiac structure. It would be

impossible--when including so much--to isolate what really matters in

relation to signs.

 

>{Dave wrote:]

>Upon doing that writing and reviewing it, and recognizing that it was

>just a " mind dump " , I was not satisfied with the results. It was too

>much like a Tropical explanation. Following a " process " like I did

>was not the answer, for the Tropicalists would/could follow a similar

>process. This was not the way to define a sector of space.

 

[Therese:] It was more than a mind dump. It's really a comprehensive

collection of ideas from different sources. And again, the tropical camp

hasn't laid out a zodiac theory, only numerous trait words--some connected

to planets, some seemingly taken out of the blue. It seems best to begin

with basic **concepts** rather than traits for signs.

 

[Dave wrote:]

>3) I've collected a lot of Sidereal information from many sources.

>My present project is to map out the various paths, using timelines,

>to see which countries, which schools of thought came into being

>and/or practiced astrology in certain ways...

 

[Therese:] This is really a huge historical survey, which might belong in

an astrological history book!! Before attempting this, have you seen

Holden's HISTORY OF HOROSCOPTIC ASTROLOGY? It may be that Kepler College's

year of astrological history covers just what you plan.

 

>[Dave wrote:]

4) In other areas I'm reading rather well expressed opinions by

>current astrologers on why one or the other zodiac is best. These

>sets of views seem uncovincing. For example, the Tropicalists feels

>that the signs are essentially " seasonal. " This falls apart when you

>move to the southern hemisphere...

 

Yes, and the tropical camp hasn't really faced this difficulty.

 

Thanks again, Dave. It's really interesting that after more than two

thousand years of astrological practice, we still don't have clearly

defined signs! We only have traits that astrologers **believe** belong to

signs.

 

I'm all for looking at 'horoscopes today' rather than tracing a dubious

past. We're the first generation to have computer databanks at our disposal

for study and research.

 

Therese