The Disposition of planets
Edmond Wollmann
Astrology is a complex subject. Nothing reveals this more than the
application of rulerships and dispositor dynamics. These dynamics are
based on the Essential dignities and traditional rulers. Let me say at
the outset that planets cannot "rule" signs. The signs-or more
appropriately "sections of space" that signs delineate, are more
expansive in scope and breadth because they stretch to infinity in all
directions extending out from the Earth. Therefore the planets, which
are within the boundaries of the solar system, either closely align with
the energies reflected in these areas of space, or conflict with them.
(diagram)
The essential dignities are as follows;
Not sure how this appears, if someone wishes a better formatted chart I
can send one via e-mail)
~DEVOR'S TABLE OF PLANETARY DIGNITIES~
Planet | Ruler | Detriment | Exaltation
| Fall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun......... | Leo | Aquarius |
Aries | Libra
Moon......| Cancer | Capricorn | Taurus
| Scorpio
Mercury..| Gemini-Virgo | Sag - Pisces | *Aquarius |
*Leo
Venus.....| Taurus-Libra | Scorpio-Aries | Pisces |
Virgo
Mars.......| Aries-Scorpio | Libra-Taurus | *Capricorn |
*Cancer
Jupiter....| Pisces-Sag. | Virgo-Gemini | *Cancer |
*Capricorn
Saturn.....| Cap.-Aqu. | Cancer-Leo | Libra
| Aries
Uranus....| *Aquarius | *Leo | Scorpio
| Taurus
Neptune..| *Pisces | *Virgo | Cancer
| Capricorn
Pluto.......| *Scorpio | *Taurus |
Leo | Aquarius
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Modern planetary rulerships
* Virgo is given as the Exaltation of Mercury according to some
authorities -
as well as its sign rulership; therefore Pisces the sign of its Fall.
Other
authorities give Virgo as the Exaltation of Mars; Capricorn the
Exaltation of
Jupiter. Some give Pluto's exaltation as Aries and its fall as Libra.
Special note: A planetary Dignity is determined by virtue of sign
position
and not because of its supporting aspects.
The conflicting of planets with certain signs-or fall and detriment-is
the result of the archetype of the area of space reflecting a certain
concept that a planet with a contradictory archetype stimulates or
focuses in a way that is not conducive to its natural expression. This
is observed by the planet in question really not functioning in the way
it was "designed" to function. It is rather like wearing snow shoes to
the beach, or cowboy boots to the gym. Same feet (planet), but different
functions require the most adapted and functionally adequate shoes
(signs). Or, in another example, an off road truck requires off road
tires for best functioning-likewise an Indy racer would not fare well
with off road tires.
I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
exalted in detriment or fall.
Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
views are warmly welcomed:-)
Thanks
Fox Mulder
Sue Armitage
In article <3425FA...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>
> The conflicting of planets with certain signs-or fall and detriment-is
>the result of the archetype of the area of space reflecting a certain
>concept that a planet with a contradictory archetype stimulates or
>focuses in a way that is not conducive to its natural expression. This
>is observed by the planet in question really not functioning in the way
>it was "designed" to function. It is rather like wearing snow shoes to
>the beach, or cowboy boots to the gym. Same feet (planet), but different
>functions require the most adapted and functionally adequate shoes
>(signs). Or, in another example, an off road truck requires off road
>tires for best functioning-likewise an Indy racer would not fare well
>with off road tires.
>
>I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
>discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
>exalted in detriment or fall.
>Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
>views are warmly welcomed:-)
Hi,
You know I like things simple - so I like the shoe analogy:) BUT I also
have a big bee in my bonnet about Mercury ruling Virgo and Venus ruling
Libra.
Mercury in Gemini: dances in time to the music in perfectly fitting
ballet shoes
Mercury in Virgo: dances in shoes from the same store but the laces
aren't really long enough and they have to be checked every 5 minutes to
make sure they are still in place. This ruins the flow and the dancer
is out of time with the music. Why does Mercury rule Virgo? Virgo is
too nit picky for Mercury. Hermes never worried whether he was getting
it right - he just assumed he was......
And what about Venus? Do we split it down the middle into sexual and
non-sexual because Taurus and Libra are SO unalike that I just don't see
how they can possibly both be ruled by Venus. If Venus is about
indulgence and money and the archetype is Aphrodite (whose only divine
duty was to make love) how on earth can this planet rule Libra - an air
sign which is far too refined to be as explicit and suggestive as
Aphrodite!
Oh and Mars in Pisces is a bit like wearing cowboy boots to the gym,
too. No, actually it's more like wearing fluffy slippers to the
gym..... but anyway it's not a particularly happy place for Mars to
express it's archetypal character.
Sue
Fox Mulder
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
> discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
> exalted in detriment or fall.
> Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
> views are warmly welcomed:-)
I'm interested *G* and will be here.
EWollmann
Subject: Re: The Disposition of planets
From: ewol...@aol.com (EWollmann)
Date: 23 Sep 1997 01:45:45 GMT
Message-id: <19970923014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>From: Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:43:39 +0100
>Message-id: <L3DasJA7...@denys.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <3425FA...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> writes
>>
>> The conflicting of planets with certain signs-or fall and detriment-is
>>the result of the archetype of the area of space reflecting a certain
>>concept that a planet with a contradictory archetype stimulates or
>>focuses in a way that is not conducive to its natural expression. This
>>is observed by the planet in question really not functioning in the way
>>it was "designed" to function. It is rather like wearing snow shoes to
>>the beach, or cowboy boots to the gym. Same feet (planet), but different
>>functions require the most adapted and functionally adequate shoes
>>(signs). Or, in another example, an off road truck requires off road
>>tires for best functioning-likewise an Indy racer would not fare well
>>with off road tires.
>>
>>I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
>>discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
>>exalted in detriment or fall.
>>Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
>>views are warmly welcomed:-)
>
>Hi,
>
>You know I like things simple - so I like the shoe analogy:) BUT I also
>have a big bee in my bonnet about Mercury ruling Virgo and Venus ruling
>Libra.
>Mercury in Gemini: dances in time to the music in perfectly fitting
>ballet shoes
Who said Mercury has anything to do with dancing-it has to do with
thinking and perspective. Put on a pair of work boots and there's Mercury
in Virgo and Virgo. Refer to my Perspective post about the orbital tilt of
Mercury and Pluto.
>Mercury in Virgo: dances in shoes from the same store but the laces
>aren't really long enough and they have to be checked every 5 minutes to
>make sure they are still in place.
You are mistaking a Saturnian fear and sense of responsibility with a
CATEGORIZATION AND QUANITITATIVE mental perspective-which is Virgo-Mercury
or Gemini with a pound of Earth. The categorizational aspects of Virgo is
simply an Earthified Mercury for the application of NECESSARY segragation
and discrimination falculties essential for FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY in the
material world (and for critical thinking to assess our projections and
DISCERN them in physicality -Libra).
> This ruins the flow and the dancer
>is out of time with the music.
Mercury is not about flow and music-it is about mental constructs-one
intellectual and abstract (Gemini) and one pragmatic and functional
(Virgo). The duality aspect ruling two signs IS A GIVEN-as they are the
first encounter of the artificial construct or PERSON-ality defined at 1
meeting itself in POLARIZED versions through dissemination either in
abstract social forms (Gemini) or in the apparent materialized projections
of the self (Virgo). Because the self is a SPLAYED and POLARIZED version
physically of the oversoul that actually exists everywhere at once
NON-physically-it follows that the DISSEMINATED aspects of itself would be
closely tied to the conscious mind and focused aspects of the self ruled by
planets in the closer orbits of the solar system-the SOLID ROCKY planets of
the CRYSTALLIZED self-the "persona."
> Why does Mercury rule Virgo?
Explained above polarized dualistic EARTH Mercurial functions as opposed
to abstract AIRY mental functions.
> Virgo is
>too nit picky for Mercury.
Please see my opening statements-the planets DO NOT AND CANNOT "rule"
signs! The signs are the greater or more expanded versions of the self that
the planets FOCUS as a lens-they best focus the "light" as a lens focuses
the light entering the camera-it is then FILTERED through the planet.
Therefore Mercury BEST REPRESENTS AND FILTERS the "light" of Virgo-it
"actually" is neither Virgo OR Gemini, but is the closest archetypal
reference in this solar system to REPRESENT and bring down to Earth the
"Virgoian" or "Geminian" ideas of polarity and duality as the effect of
physicality. That is why Mercury is so close to the conscious ego self
functions in orbit (the Sun).
> Hermes never worried whether he was getting
>it right - he just assumed he was......
Again, myths BEST REPRESENT and REFLECT the ideas we discuss they don't
MAKE them. This is why I harp on creating our reality and that it is not
OUTSIDE OF YOU for these simple reasons-we begin to define the ENTIRE
MULTIVERSE in terms of it being external and it is NOT!!! WE create these
archetypes-not Hermes or the planet Mercury-these "props" then REFLECT the
ideas that we hold AS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
This is why-contrary to the scientific communities assumption-that
physical focus and science are the TRUE illusion and synchronicity,
harmonization, holisitcally derived and holographically derived
perspectives are the REAL state of things.
>And what about Venus? Do we split it down the middle into sexual and
Sex is Mars related-to prove the ego as an effect of desire-Venus is the
need to SEE the self through reflected versions of the self-to be accepted
and OWN the projected versions of self-but Mars is the motivating energy to
sex (and Pluto to transform perspectives through values exchange and tension).
>non-sexual because Taurus and Libra are SO unalike that I just don't see
Taurus Llike Mercury in Virgo, is the physicalized versions of the self
REFLECTED (remember Venus shines brightly BECAUSE OF ITS CLOUDS AND
REFLECTIVITY) in material things and Libra is through the abstract
idealized and social intellectual reflection. AGAIN ROCKY planets focused
in towards the sun as concrete (solid) aspects of the artificial construct
called PERSONA. The mask or false face that the soul uses to "sound
through" (what personare actually means) while experiencing the DUALITY OF
PHYSICALITY. Don't CHANGE THESE ANCIENT RULERS-THEY ARE THERE FOR VERY GOOD
REASONS. As we expand the OUTER definitions change as we add more -but the
inner and rocky planets that reflect the physical self will only expand in
meaning but never "rule" something else.
>how they can possibly both be ruled by Venus. If Venus is about
>indulgence and money and the archetype is Aphrodite (whose only divine
Again you place the power outside yourself and describe EFFECTS not causes
of archetypal references.
>duty was to make love) how on earth can this planet rule Libra - an air
>sign which is far too refined to be as explicit and suggestive as
>Aphrodite!
Romantic love is the effect of the idea of believing that the you you are
is ALL you are and so desire (Mars) and the need to blend marry and
harmonize to balance yourself out with the aspects we have creatred to
appear OUTSIDE of us (Libra) and so again these are the EFFECTS of being
physical-the myths reflect our EXPERIENCES of the "splaying of spirit" in
physicality "I and my father arone in the same" is CLOSER to the truth than
that we are separate-which is an illusion.
>Oh and Mars in Pisces is a bit like wearing cowboy boots to the gym,
>too. No, actually it's more like wearing fluffy slippers to the
>gym..... but anyway it's not a particularly happy place for Mars to
>express it's archetypal character.
It reflects the person who has it's BELIEFS of their ABILITY to
EFFECTIVELY function in applkying the artificial construct in the material
world-AGAIN "it" is NOT something outside of us-it reflects our HEALTH AND
BELIEFS WITH REGARD TO THAT IDEA OR ARCHETYPE. So in Pisces the person with
Mars so placed does not believe that self assertion and validation is
"possible" or "good" in the physical world and hence will ACT LIKE THAT.
Because as I have said a million times ACTION IS THE CONVICTION OF
BELIEF!!!!!!!
Since Mars postiion is in a less than "trusting" position in either
Cancer, Picses, or Libra, persons with the planet so placed at birth
CREATED being born at a time to REFLECT THAT IDEA THAT THEY ARE. The planet
doesn't "make them" that way.
We were created in the image of God! That means WE ARE INFINITE
CO-CREATORS WITH IT.
We are the reality it appears we exist within-it is NOT outside of us.
I hope this explains some of what I have been saying for a year and a half
now-anyone paying attention to this rather than "what Ed Wollmann's ego is
like"?
--
"In the world of me and you, all is forgotten when we're inside, and the
words that pass us by, I am not listening, All of it's lies. And it's up to
you why won't you say? Make our lives turn out this way. If they knew that
we have got nothing to l0ose, no reason to hide from whats true!" The Moody
Blues "It's Up To You!"
Edmond H. Wollmann
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Sue Armitage
In article <19970923014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, EWollmann
<ewol...@aol.com> writes
>
>
>> This ruins the flow and the dancer
>>is out of time with the music.
>
>Mercury is not about flow and music
No Ed, I know that. Although Hermes was a consumate musician .....
>
>
>> Hermes never worried whether he was getting
>>it right - he just assumed he was......
>
>Again, myths BEST REPRESENT and REFLECT the ideas we discuss they don't
>MAKE them.
For me they bring to life the planets and, through them, the signs.
> This is why I harp on creating our reality and that it is not
>OUTSIDE OF YOU for these simple reasons-we begin to define the ENTIRE
>MULTIVERSE in terms of it being external and it is NOT!!!
What ever has understanding the essence of the signs got to do with NOT
creating our reality? Understanding the planets and signs helps you
understand yourself and until you do this you cannot create anything
else - otherwise it just collapses the minute it is challenged.
> WE create these
>archetypes-not Hermes or the planet Mercury-these "props" then REFLECT the
>ideas that we hold AS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
The myths grew out of the collective unconscious - so the myths ARE us
and we are the myths.
>
>>And what about Venus? Do we split it down the middle into sexual and
>
>Sex is Mars related
Only if it is without relationship (Venus). 'Physical energy' is Mars
related.
>
>Again you place the power outside yourself and describe EFFECTS not causes
>of archetypal references.
The power of a myth CANNOT be outside yourself. Jung said all the
archetypes are within us. I think you misunderstand me.
Sue
>
Edmond Wollmann
Earl Baker wrote:
>
> In article <nMAb4FA$m9J0...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
> Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I know this is controversial but I have been thinking of Chiron as the
> >ruler of Virgo for some time. I have heard plenty of people argue
> >against this but my opinion is that the myth fits Virgo very well
> >indeed.
The problem is that rationalizing can make anything fit-but the fact of
the matter is Chiron's orbit does not allow it to be anything other than
a bridge from Saturn to Uranus, and I find no corraboration from Chiron
to Virgo and discrimination, discernment, critical thinking and
pragmatic logic-Chiron allows us to be healed of Saturn and move to more
expanded and self directed creative behavior-the transition from the
limits of Saturn to the waking up at Uranus.
This idea has 0 to do with Virgo.
My .02
Ed
--
"Monks and scholars should accept my word not out of respect, but upon
analyzing it as a goldsmith analyzes gold; through cutting melting,
scraping and rubbing it." Buddha
Marsha
EWollmann wrote:
>
> >From: Marsha <sha...@mindspring.com>
> >Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:03:23 -0500
> >Message-id: <34274D9B...@mindspring.com>
....
> >So, instead of Mercury *rules* Gemini or Virgo, then you would > >suggest
> >that Mercury *represents/reflects* Gemini/Virgo or Mercury is
> >*represented/reflected* by Gemini/Virgo?
> ....
>
> Yes I tried to use the analogy of a light (sign) and that the "light"
> isthen FOCUSED by the planet like a lens. This analogy I utilize
> through my book. Remember the further out we go in orbit, the deeper
> into the psyche we go-so that the area of space designated a "sign" is
> deeper than where the planets reside so to speak. Therefore, the
> "light" coming from deep within the self is focused through the lens
> of the planet. When Mercury is in Virgo for example, it maens that the
> lens (planet) is COMPATIBLE or best focuses the light of Virgo. Lets
> say blue light going through a blue lens will be undistorted, so we
> get a good representation of "blue" when blue light is shown through a
> blue lens. But if we put blue light through a yellow or blueblocker
> lens with say a fisheye format (meaning a very wide angle) not only
> will the blue be distorted if not altogether removed, but the view
> would be distorted as well. This would be analogous to say Mercury
> in Picses where the conscious mind functions of focus and clarity for
> physical world duality application may be confused by emotional
> considerations-see?
OK, yes! Looking at it as 3-dimensional helps a lot, something
"clicked" :)
> >> Taurus Llike Mercury in Virgo, is the physicalized versions of the
> >> self REFLECTED (remember Venus shines brightly BECAUSE OF ITS
> >> CLOUDS AND REFLECTIVITY) in material things and Libra is through
> >> the abstract idealized and social intellectual reflection. AGAIN
> >> ROCKY planets focused in towards the sun as concrete (solid)
> >> aspects of the artificial construct called PERSONA. The mask or
> >> false face that the soul uses to "sound through" (what personare
> >> actually means) while experiencing the DUALITY OF PHYSICALITY.
> >> Don't CHANGE THESE ANCIENT RULERS-THEY ARE THERE FOR VERY
> >> GOOD REASONS. As we expand the OUTER definitions change as we add
> >> more -but the inner and rocky planets that reflect the physical
> >> self will only expand in meaning but never "rule" something else.
> ....
> >I'm trying to follow this, but I don't see Mars as "desire", but more
> >as the "action" resulting from desire or belief or something
> >else--which may or may not be desire.
> But action is the cof belief-how you act reflects the conviction of
> belief. We believe we are separate, because of this belief we need to
> prove the validity of this separate entity. We apply ourselves because
> we have the DRIVE from desire to merge with the shadow aspects of the
> self
Shadow aspects meaning opposite of who we are?
> (Venus). Venus attracts, Mars applies or pursues, Venus radiates
> and attracts through allure, Mars acts on this with desire. Moving
> toward the allure. The marriage is the two aspects of the self seeking
> REintegration. Like the circle (horoscope) when you divide it by the
> horizon (ascendant line) the two hemispheres then being in opposition
> to another seek reintegration-it is the natural effect of physicality
> to divide and seek reintegration-back towards the unbroken wholeness
> of the "All That Is".
So then, if Venus in a chart is what attracts, then Mars would be the
energy used to obtain that which it's attracted to? I don't think I
have that right.
> ....
>
> >> So in Pisces the person with
> >> Mars so placed does not believe that self assertion and validation
> >> is "possible" or "good" in the physical world
>
> >Could it be that they do believe that it's possible and/or good but
> >just not in the most commonly-expressed manner--not in the basic
> >understanding of the energy?
>
> But that is a subjective judgment.
It is?..
> Mars is Aries. Aries is the natural
> assertion of the self. The natural assertion of the self is following
> ones bliss or inspiration to become the idea that "All That Is"
> intended it to be in its exploration of itself. To say that that
> aggression or assertion is not "correct" and we have to soften it or
> whatever (Mars in Picses, Cancer-especially) is to say you don't
> believe that assertion is not "good". It just is. The sign your Mars
> is in tells us HOW and in what way
> we will assert this idea that we are. It is like the analogy above, to
> shine blue light through the yellow lens-it is niether "good" or "bad"
> if we come up with "green"-that is not the point.
OK.
> The point is blue
> was INTENDED. And if you intend blue (assertion of the identity) but
> you don't believe blue is good (assertion must be softened or changed
> because it is inherently "dangerous or bad") then you get green where
> blue is needed, and may then RE-inforce your belief that assertion is
> bad when you don't fulfill the idea that you chose to be from this
> "judging" of blue (or assertion). So it is more likely that the
> repressed signs of Mars- like Libra (placing the power with the other
> rather than with the SELF definition) or Cancer (emotional concerns
> for security intrude on natural assertion functions) will lose control
> or be vindictive and powerless in their assertion of themselves
> because they start with the belief that the natural assertion is "bad"
> to begin with. Therefore they may REPRESS natural assertion from this > judgment and belief-and when not fulfilled from their own restrictive > belief-LASH OUT agressively to overcompensate for their own self
> denial of assertion NATURALLY-see?
I think so...
> Then they increase their own
> judgments and reinforce their own beliefs that assertion is "bad"-when
> it was just something NECESSARY to be the being you chose to be in
> this world.
> This increases (if this scenario gets more overcompensatory over
> lifetimes) the probability that not only will Mars be in detriments
> like
> Libra or Cancer in the next life, but that it may be Rx and under
> developmental tension (squares and oppositions) increasingly becoming > more
> difficult until the self learns IT is creating its own opposition
> through
> the beliefs and judgments IT HOLDS ABOUT assertion-period. Assertion
> itselfjust is as a function-a necessary function in physicality. See?
> Does that help?
Yes.
I'm getting a feeling of "fate" though. We still have a choice in this
life as to how we use the energy, even if we've chosen a particular
position previously, right--it would still be colored by that sign but
couldn't it be expressed differently?
....
> >> Since Mars postiion is in a less than "trusting" position in either
> >> Cancer, Picses, or Libra, persons with the planet so placed at
> >> birth CREATED being born at a time to REFLECT THAT IDEA THAT THEY
> >> ARE. The planet
> >> doesn't "make them" that way.
>
> >OK, they just are that way for whatever reason they chose.
>
> Yes, they are that way because of what they BELIEVE, they are then
> born with a chart and at a time that REFLECTS through the planetary
> configurations THAT they hold those beliefs.
> It is the locus of
> control that makes a whole world of difference in understanding.
This, I don't understand :)) "locus of control"
> >> We were created in the image of God! That means WE ARE INFINITE
> >> CO-CREATORS WITH IT.
> >> We are the reality it appears we exist within-it is NOT outside of > >> us.
> >....
>
> Thank you for your questions, if I can clarify anymore please let me
> know.
> --
> "I believe I shall, in some shape or other, always exsist; and, with
> all the inconveniences human life is liable to, I shall not object to
> a new edition of my life, hoping, however, that the errata of the last
> may be corrected." Benjamin Franklin
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Thanks for your answers!
Marsha
Sue Armitage
In article <342938fe...@news.mindspring.com>, ?@?.? writes
>On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:43:39 +0100, Sue Armitage
><s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Mercury in Virgo: dances in shoes from the same store but the laces
>>aren't really long enough and they have to be checked every 5 minutes to
>>is out of time with the music. Why does Mercury rule Virgo? Virgo is
>>too nit picky for Mercury. Hermes never worried whether he was getting
>>it right - he just assumed he was......
>
>is out of control in a way.
Exactly! That is why I think that Mercury is connected with Gemini
only. Mercury in it's purest form IS out of control - it flits from one
idea to another, brilliant but unfocussed - 'Let's do this, that was
fun, now let's do something else' You know the Hermes myth? Well isn't
that SO Gemini? (AND he is also the Trickster).
>
>Supposedly there are new planets to come for Virgo and Libra. In the
>meantime, it just says mass consciousness can't integrate those new
>awarenesses yet.
I know this is controversial but I have been thinking of Chiron as the
ruler of Virgo for some time. I have heard plenty of people argue
against this but my opinion is that the myth fits Virgo very well
indeed. Poor old Chiron gets a wound that won't heal from his friend
(no less) and then drags himself around the countryside helping others.
This is the essence of Virgo for me. 'Oh I have a terrible headache but
I really must clean the oven and wash the kitchen floor before I lie
down!'
>
>>And what about Venus? Do we split it down the middle into sexual and
>>non-sexual because Taurus and Libra are SO unalike that I just don't see
>>how they can possibly both be ruled by Venus. If Venus is about
>>indulgence and money and the archetype is Aphrodite (whose only divine
>>duty was to make love) how on earth can this planet rule Libra - an air
>>sign which is far too refined to be as explicit and suggestive as
>>Aphrodite!
>
>What about grace? This is not a quality that ordinarily brings the
>word "Taurus" to mind.
I don't know about that. Taurus is usually a great dancer.
> Venus and Libra have a great to do with social
>interaction. I hadn't thought of it in these terms before now, but
>here again we have the same pattern as above. From Libra we get the
>quality of discrimination; Taurus is more interested in quantity. And
>you're right- Venus energy can also be ferocious.
My interest, I think, is in establishing what is pure Venus? If pure
Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
more to Taurus than to Libra - in fact I fail to see how it applies to
Libra at all. If pure Venus energy is non-sexual beauty, harmony and
grace then it fits Libra but not Taurus.
What I am saying is personally I can't twist it round to make it fit
both!
Sue
Earl Baker
>ruler of Virgo for some time. I have heard plenty of people argue
>against this but my opinion is that the myth fits Virgo very well
>indeed. Poor old Chiron gets a wound that won't heal from his friend
>(no less) and then drags himself around the countryside helping others.
>This is the essence of Virgo for me. 'Oh I have a terrible headache but
>I really must clean the oven and wash the kitchen floor before I lie
>down!'
Chiron ruling Virgo is an idea worth exploring, I'm becoming more
in agreement with it as time goes by. The wound business is a bit
overdone I think; Chiron was many things, a great teacher, whose
depth/breadth of knowledge was amazing. He was Virgoan in the
sense of needing to do each little step, learn each little thing,
on the journey to mastery of a subject/task. The wound part
has perhaps been overemphasized in this period, which is after
all only the first 20 years after its discovery.
--
__________sss k k y y w w eee a sss eee l __________
_________ss kk yy www ee aaa ss ee l _________
_______sss k k y w w eee a a sss eee llll________
dun...@skypoint.com||||||skyw...@skypoint.com
Sue Armitage
In article <34287D...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>Earl Baker wrote:
>>
>> In article <nMAb4FA$m9J0...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
>> Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >I know this is controversial but I have been thinking of Chiron as the
>> >ruler of Virgo for some time. I have heard plenty of people argue
>> >against this but my opinion is that the myth fits Virgo very well
>> >indeed.
>
I thought the whole point was that my argument was irrational :)
You and I do not work in the same way. As far as I am concerned the
myths describe the archetypes that are within all of us and the Mercury
(Hermes) myth does not equate with Virgo. (My opinion - but not ONLY my
opinion!). Surely a planet in the sign of it's rulership is operating at
it's purest and Mercury is operating at it's purest in Gemini as Mars
does in Aries and Venus does in Taurus (not Libra!). You wouldn't argue
about Mars in Aries, I take it, even if you would argue about the
others?
Saying that the ancients knew something that we don't when they assigned
the planets to their original signs may be right - but on the other hand
it may not - after all since they didn't have enough planets to go round
they were rather forced into doubling some of them up, weren't they? :)
Astrology is not scientific to any great degree it is about symbolism
and (for me) archetypal mythology, so the fact that Chiron is not
considered to be a planet is largely (for me!) immaterial. It's
influence is there. I use it and it works and I see it as a teaching,
healing Virgoan energy and a wound through which you can come to
understand something about yourself and others.
>-but the fact of
>the matter is Chiron's orbit does not allow it to be anything other than
>a bridge from Saturn to Uranus, and I find no corraboration from Chiron
>to Virgo and discrimination, discernment, critical thinking and
>pragmatic logic
Virgo's critical thinking and discernment is born out of a desire to get
things right for it's own satisfaction - it is satisfying it's OWN needs
and from this others may be satisfied - it heals itself and through
this heals others - think about it!
>-Chiron allows us to be healed of Saturn and move to more
>expanded and self directed creative behavior-the transition from the
>limits of Saturn to the waking up at Uranus.
>This idea has 0 to do with Virgo.
>My .02
>Ed
>--
>"Monks and scholars should accept my word not out of respect, but upon
>analyzing it as a goldsmith analyzes gold; through cutting melting,
>scraping and rubbing it." Buddha
:)) OK - what happens if when you've analysed it you still don't accept
it?
Sue
--
Fox Mulder
In article <3429A2...@aznet.net>, woll...@aznet.net says...
> > EWollmann wrote:
....
>
> Yes I tried to use the analogy of a light (sign) and that the
> utilize through my book. Remember the further out we go in orbit,
Thank you!
Edmond Wollmann
C4A wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:29:23 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >Marsha wrote:
> >>So, instead of Mercury *rules* Gemini or Virgo, then you would
> >>suggest that Mercury *represents/reflects* Gemini/Virgo or Mercury
> >>is *represented/reflected* by Gemini/Virgo?
....
> >Yes I tried to use the analogy of a light (sign) and that the
> > "light" is then FOCUSED by the planet like a lens. This analogy I
> > utilize through my book. Remember the further out we go in orbit,
> > the deeper into the psyche we go-so that the area of space
> > designated a "sign" is deeper than where the planets reside so to
> > speak. Therefore, the "light" coming from deep within the self is
> > focused through the lens of the planet. When Mercury is in Virgo
> > for example, it maens that the lens (planet) is COMPATIBLE or best
> > focuses the light of Virgo. Lets say blue light going through a
> > blue lens will be undistorted, so we get a good representation of
> > "blue" when blue light is shown through a blue lens. But if we put
> > blue light through a yellow or blueblocker lens with say a fisheye
> > format (meaning a very wide angle) not only will the blue be
> > distorted if not altogether removed, but the view would be
> > distorted as well. This would be analogous to say Mercury in Picses
> >where the conscious mind functions of focus and clarity for
> > physical world duality application may be confused by emotional
> > considerations-see?
> This is interesting, and I'm not sure it makes any difference, but I
> use exactly the reverse (planet rules a sign or two, signs
> modify/modulate how the planets express), but the end result in
> interpretation looks like it would be the same.
Well, the reason I do it this way is because the solar system (and
therefore the person-ality functions) become less and less focused and
deeper in the psyche as we move out from the system center-the Sun. The
consciousness of the system has an order-like all of nature. One thing
the cynics will not tell you is that science is based on faith-the faith
that this system of order underlies all-otherwise no experiment or
hypothesis could ever move forward-so they are believers-whether they
like to admit it or not:-)
> I'd never considered your approach until I saw you post some things a
> few weeks back.
> Ken
Trust me, planets focus the energy of the signs, this is why elemental
count needs to be the first consideration in the horoscope. When I oil
paint and I know the "background" will be primarily blues or sky colored
we always paint the canvas white FIRST because painters usually use
primary colors, these colors (in this case something like Prussian blue)
are then MIXED with the white to bring forth the light blue.
Like this, the horoscope is a painting and the backdrop (the deeper
aspect of the self and "background" consciousness) is brought forward
AFTER we establish the "hue" of the persona-instead of mixing the colors
to "paint" the picture, we "read" the colors to GET the picture.
Thanks for your response.
Ed
--
Starry, starry night, paint your palette blue and grey,
look out on a summer's day
with eyes that know the darkness in my soul,
Shadows on the hill,
sketch the trees and the Daffodils,
catch the breeze and the winter chills
in colors on the snowy linen land,
Now I understand what you tried to say to me,
and how you suffered for your sanity,
how you tried to set them free,
they would not listen, they did not know how,
perhaps they'll listen now.
"Vincent" Don Mclean
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Edmond Wollmann
Marsha wrote:
> EWollmann wrote:
> > >> >So, instead of Mercury *rules* Gemini or Virgo, then you would
> > >suggest
> > >> >that Mercury *represents/reflects* Gemini/Virgo or Mercury is
> > >> >*represented/reflected* by Gemini/Virgo?
....
Yes I tried to use the analogy of a light (sign) and that the
"light" is then FOCUSED by the planet like a lens. This analogy I
utilize through my book. Remember the further out we go in orbit,
the deeper into the psyche we go-so that the area of space
designated a "sign" is deeper than where the planets reside so to
speak. Therefore, the "light" coming from deep within the self is
focused through the lens of the planet. When Mercury is in Virgo
for example, it maens that the lens (planet) is COMPATIBLE or best
focuses the light of Virgo. Lets say blue light going through a
blue lens will be undistorted, so we get a good representation of
"blue" when blue light is shown through a blue lens. But if we put
blue light through a yellow or blueblocker lens with say a fisheye
format (meaning a very wide angle) not only will the blue be
distorted if not altogether removed, but the view would be
distorted as well. This would be analogous to say Mercury in Picses
where the conscious mind functions of focus and clarity for
physical world duality application may be confused by emotional
considerations-see?
> > >OK, yes! Looking at it as 3-dimensional helps a lot, something
> > >"clicked" :)
> > Yes, it is NON JUDGMENTAL either way,
> Yes, I see.
> > it is simply reflective of mechanics, this is where I have the most
> > difficulties explaining, because everyone is taught to believe in such
> > "good/bad, right/wrong" terms I have to try to dissolve that
> > perspective WHILE I explain.
> Yes, and even though I understand it, I understand it better sometimes
> than others--it comes and goes :)
Yes, this is referred to in my definitions list-it is called "Threshold
of Believability" the momentum and conviction of our beliefs.
....
> > >> >> more -but the inner and rocky planets that reflect the physical
> > >> >> self will only expand in meaning but never "rule" something > >> >> else.
....
> > >> >I'm trying to follow this, but I don't see Mars as "desire", but
> > >> >more as the "action" resulting from desire or belief or something
> > >> >else--which may or may not be desire.
> > >> But action is the conviction of belief-how you act reflects the
> > >> conviction of
> > >> belief. We believe we are separate, because of this belief we need
> > >> to prove the validity of this separate entity. We apply ourselves
> > >> because we have the DRIVE from desire to merge with the shadow
> > >> aspects of the self
> > >Shadow aspects meaning opposite of who we are?
> > Yes, the "apparent" other-but remember the other whether they actually
> > ARE separate (at least in this reality) still ARE us. This is what
> > many spiritual leaders mean by loving our neighbor as
> > ourselves-because they ARE us-"All That Is" is literally all that is.
> > INTEGRAL THNIKING, see?
> OK, right.
> > So even if its a chair it is a projected PROP.
> > Mars is the motivator behind the DESIRE to REintegrate the props back
> > into the recognition of them being the self-Venus is the mirror that
> > reflects the image back to STIMULATE the desire for reunification.
> > >> (Venus). Venus attracts, Mars applies or pursues, Venus radiates
> > >> and attracts through allure, Mars acts on this with desire. Moving
> > >> toward the allure. The marriage is the two aspects of the self
> > >> seeking REintegration. Like the circle (horoscope) when you divide
> > >> it by the horizon (ascendant line) the two hemispheres then being
> > >> in opposition to another seek reintegration-it is the natural
> > >> effect of physicality to divide and seek reintegration-back towards
> > >> the unbroken wholeness of the "All That Is".
> Well, that makes sense now.
> > >So then, if Venus in a chart is what attracts, then Mars would be the
> > >energy used to obtain that which it's attracted to? I don't think I
> > >have that right.
> > Well to move toward it, one attracts (just like most of the female
> > species do) and one goes after:-)
> Oh, OK.
....
> > >> >> So in Pisces the person with
> > >> >> Mars so placed does not believe that self assertion and
> > >> >> validation is "possible" or "good" in the physical world
> > >> >Could it be that they do believe that it's possible and/or good
> > >> >but just not in the most commonly-expressed manner--not in the
> > >> >basic understanding of the energy?
> > >> But that is a subjective judgment.
> > >It is?..
> > I mean back to the mechanics idea-yes they are expressing it
> > differently and they could have really good aspects for example, then
> > this may not be conflictive, but still mechanistically deficient, do > you follow that?
> OK, yes.
> > >OK.
> > >I think so...
> > So like Mars in Cancer the emotional security needs WHICH ARE
> > IRRELELVENT AND INTERFEREING IN SELF ASSERTION are mechanistically
> > deficient for the best functioning of the "persona" in this particular > "feat" see?
> It's "side-tracked" by other considerations that aren't necessary for
> self-assertion?
YES!!!! Hence it is in it's FALL! In Libra it is in detriment because
seeking social acceptance is the ANTITHESIS of Mars mechanistic
reflection and function, which is to be the ONE PATH THAT YOU ARE.
> > So it
> > reflects the belief that EASY NATURAL ASSERTION WILL BE DIFFICULT AND
> > COMPLICATED BY EMOTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS and security concerns-therefor
> > the identity CREATES scenarios that REFLECT this-this then is the
> > persons "proof" that that is "the way things are"-because it is
> > "Believing is seeing" not seeing is believing, that is how we create
> > our reality-as the cynics would say-confirmation bias-the thing they
> > do all day on this group to themselves.:-)
> Oh right, when you expect something, it usually happens. Almost like a
> habit.
Yes, I have referred to this as the reinforcing logic that each system
of belief has-it always works it never doesn't work and no one is
exmept-not even me:-) So if, for example, you believe you will find a
purgatory when you die YOU WILL! However, since our true natural state
is one of ecstasy and excitment and bliss, the simple law of not being
able to stay in such a negative state for very long will not allow
someone to remain in pain forever, therefore-no such thing as a "real"
hell-closest thing to it is HERE, where we have forgotten our
co-creatorship with "All That Is".
> > >> Then they increase their own
> > >> judgments and reinforce their own beliefs that assertion is
> > >> "bad"-when it was just something NECESSARY to be the being you
> > >> chose to be in this world.
> > >> This increases (if this scenario gets more overcompensatory over
> > >> lifetimes) the probability that not only will Mars be in detriments
> > >> like
> > >> Libra or Cancer in the next life, but that it may be Rx and under
> > >> developmental tension (squares and oppositions) increasingly
> >> > becoming more
> > >> difficult until the self learns IT is creating its own opposition
> > >> through
> > >> the beliefs and judgments IT HOLDS ABOUT assertion-period.
> > >> Assertion itselfjust is as a function-a necessary function in
> > >> physicality. See? Does that help?
> > >Yes.
> > >I'm getting a feeling of "fate" though. We still have a choice in
> > >this life as to how we use the energy, even if we've chosen a
> > >particular position previously, right--it would still be colored by
> > >that sign but couldn't it be expressed differently?
> > Yes! The whole purpose of astrology and other self introspective tools
> > is to SEE these mechanistic psychological workings of the self! Then
> > we can OWN THEM. We cannot change that which we do not own and
> > "believe" is outside of us-then after owning comes observation of
> > behavior and reconfiguring or cognitive recognitions of behavior and
> > redefining it to PREFERRED behavior. This is why I caution so much
> > about science, because although it is a wonderful tool to understand
> > physical reality and mechanics of it-it is very easy to fall into the
> > "outside" causing the inside-not possible-deception-Saturn illusions!
> > Yes, I have explained this in my "Hallway A" analogy that can be
> > retrieved via deja news as to free will of the physical self and free
> > will choices of the higher self.
...
> > >> >> Since Mars postiion is in a less than "trusting" position in
> > >> >> either Cancer, Picses, or Libra, persons with the planet so
> > >> >> placed at birth CREATED being born at a time to REFLECT THAT
> > >> >> IDEA THAT THEY ARE. The planet
> > >> >> doesn't "make them" that way.
> > >> >OK, they just are that way for whatever reason they chose.
> > >> Yes, they are that way because of what they BELIEVE, they are then
> > >> born with a chart and at a time that REFLECTS through the planetary
> > >> configurations THAT they hold those beliefs.
> > >> It is the locus of
> > >> control that makes a whole world of difference in understanding.
> > >This, I don't understand :)) "locus of control"
> > Where we "believe" the "cause" is located-within us (Uranian) or
> > outside of us (Saturnian)-metaphysics or physics. I BLEND THE TWO,
> > thats why the scientific perspective is just as frustrated by my
> > arguments as are the "new age" because there is value in both and 10
> > times the power of awareness with the blending of all.
> > BECAUSE ALL THAT IS IS ALL THAT IS!:-)
> :) OK, I see now.
> > >> >> We were created in the image of God! That means WE ARE INFINITE
> > >> >> CO-CREATORS WITH IT.
> > >> >> We are the reality it appears we exist within-it is NOT outside > >> >> of us.
....
> > >> Thank you for your questions, if I can clarify anymore please let
> > >> me know.
> So, basically the disposition of the planets aren't bad if in Fall or
> Detriment, or good if in Exaltation or "Ruler"ship, they just reflect
> the choice the person made based on what they believe?
They simply reflect WHAT they believe as to the ability or "good or
badness" they view that idea as. Exalted means they are comfortable with
that idea and therefore MAXIMIZE ITS USE smoothly (or in its ruler) when
in detriment or fall they may see it as not positive to use that
function a certain way. But it can be expressed (both ways) positive or
negative, so we must be careful not to judge just based on such a
factor. I.e. a person can have Mercury in Pisces ( a discomfort with
mental functions) but it can be for good reason to serve in positive
ways or for other reasons. Edgar Cayce had Mercury in Pisces but its
sextiles to 9th house planets etc. still allowed him to express the
POSITIVE expression of Mercury there (communication and providing vast
UNCONSCIOUS information) He learned his schoolwork while sleeping on his
books!
> > >Thanks for your answers!
> > You too, for your sharing and willingness to not worry about what *I*
> > am and openly explore!
--
"I read books and draw life, from the eye. All my life is drawings from
the eye. And tell me grey seal how does it feel to be so wise? To see
through eyes that only see whats real!? Tell me grey seal!" Elton John
and Bernie Taupin "Grey Seal"
Merlinast
>From: Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com>
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:22:29 -0600
>Message-id: <34270B...@XFiles.com>
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
>> discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
>> exalted in detriment or fall.
>> Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
>> views are warmly welcomed:-)
>
>I'm interested *G* and will be here.
The Sun represents the life energy and center or singularity of the self.
In solar astrology it IS the ascendant, the beginning and the thrust of the
identity. Since all of life stems from its focus and consistency, it is the
ideal as far as an identity, because it assumes positive control. Since it
is a necessity for continuity for the identity or any idea to create and
recreate itself anew, its exaltation in Aries is easy to understand.
Because Libra is a reflective and accommodating sign, it signifies the
waning of the power of the sun and its commanding role (sunset). It is
receptive and seeks to reinforce identity through merging shadows and
reflected aspects of the self-the relaxation of assertion and conscious
center to allow the incorporation of reflected versions of the self. This
is contradictory to the glowing center of conscious focus of which the sun
is about. Therefore it is easy to understand its fall in this sign.
A word of caution however, the Sun as well as the gas giant planets are
less likely to be problematic
in the sign of their detriment or fall. This is because the effect of
rulers and dispositors is an effect of the polarization of things into
dark/light, projection/reception etc. in physicality. Therefore the planets
of persona (an artificial construct as well from the effect of ego focus in
physicality) are much more conflictive when in their signs of fall and
detriment. These are the planets Venus, Mars, Mercury. Since the planets
act as "lenses" that "focus" signs into our system for use in this system,
it is in these focused realms that displacement may be most problematic.
The Moon reflects the light of the sun and acts as a reservoir to contain
all those aspects of our consciousness that we may not be aware of or
dealing with in a conscious and focused way. Therefore its ruler, Cancer,
is fluid-a "pool" of concepts and beliefs we maintain about reality that
have been patterned and nurtured (or deprived of nurturance) as references
that allow us to feel (believe) that we are supported and nurtured. Since
Taurus is the sign reflecting access to the resourcefulness of the
Multiverse and the ability to rely on physicality for that support, the
moon is comfortable here in its values and beliefs it maintains to support
the conscious self (Sun).
Capricorn is reflective of the full manifestation of the self in
physicality-the moon the part not. Capricorn strategizes to manipulate
physicality to serve the conscious self, the moon sooths and flows to
support the psyche, hence this combination can be seen to be contradictory.
Emotions are not accepted symbiotically but dealt with consciously. This
may make it difficult for the experiencer to see things others get the gist
of about the self.
Bogdan Krusiński
Sue Armitage wrote:
>
> My interest, I think, is in establishing what is pure Venus? If pure
> Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
> more to Taurus than to Libra - in fact I fail to see how it applies to
> Libra at all. If pure Venus energy is non-sexual beauty, harmony and
> grace then it fits Libra but not Taurus.
>
Anyway, Sue, you are a woman, aren't you? I'm the opposite sex than you.
:-)
Personally, I think a woman being a beauty without a sexual
attractivenes has to be born yet.
The opposite - the sexually attractive without a beauty is very common.
So it is the Libra that is ruled by Venus, not Taurus.
Bogdan
Sue Armitage
In article <19970925153...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, EWollmann
<ewol...@aol.com> writes
>>Sue Armitage wrote:
>>>
>>> My interest, I think, is in establishing what is pure Venus? If pure
>>> Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
>
>incomplete versions, channeled concepts-no they cannot contain a "pure" version.
>Dispositor dynamics and rulership applications PROVE the rulership of
>Venus of Libra and Taurus and Mercury's double rulership as well.
>I.e. if an individual has Libra or Taurus on 12, VENUS will be found
>through examination of life events to have been the prominent factor
>regarding events of that house.
I know - but it is still a different sort of Venus depending on whether
it is Taurus or Libra - and this is my whole argument! How can two
different sorts of Venus still be Venus?
> This astrology is not just an "oh I like
>this planet ruling this or that" it can be OBSERVED (one of the key
>elements of the scientific method) operationally (another aspect of the
>scientific method) to be that. Blend science with your gut-it is not going
>to hurt.
:)) Ok, I'll try...... (you are being very patient with me Ed:)) But
you see it really isn't me just 'liking' or not liking this. It keeps
coming up. When I see Venus in Libra I interpret it completely
differently than when I see it in Taurus. You aren't arguing with that,
are you........
>When Saturn ruled Aquarius it was the best facsimilie to represent and
>reflect the idea we were CAPABLE of percieving at the time. Like its
>incomplete explanation for an archetypal reference at the time, so was the
>ability to operationalize fully the archetype of Aquarius. This is my take
>on the idea of changing the traditional plaetary rulerships-also guided by
>whether a planet occupies an organized orbit based on AU's.
>Thank you for your sharing and allowing me to.
Ok, I'll shut up now :)
Sue
Sue Armitage
In article <342A51...@mercury.ci.uw.edu.pl>, =?iso-8859-
1?q?Bogdan_Krusi=F1ski?= <bog...@mercury.ci.uw.edu.pl> writes
>Sue Armitage wrote:
>>
>> My interest, I think, is in establishing what is pure Venus? If pure
>> Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
>> Libra at all. If pure Venus energy is non-sexual beauty, harmony and
>> grace then it fits Libra but not Taurus.
>>
>> Sue
>
>Anyway, Sue, you are a woman, aren't you? I'm the opposite sex than you.
>:-)
>Personally, I think a woman being a beauty without a sexual
>attractivenes has to be born yet.
>The opposite - the sexually attractive without a beauty is very common.
>So it is the Libra that is ruled by Venus, not Taurus.
What ever gave you that idea? That is Aphrodite's Golden Girdle at
work!
Sue
Sue Armitage
In article <34311bcc...@news.mindspring.com>, ?@?.? writes
>
>>> Venus and Libra have a great to do with social
>>>interaction. I hadn't thought of it in these terms before now, but
>>>here again we have the same pattern as above. From Libra we get the
>>>quality of discrimination; Taurus is more interested in quantity. And
>>>you're right- Venus energy can also be ferocious.
>>
>>Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
>>more to Taurus than to Libra - in fact I fail to see how it applies to
>>Libra at all. If pure Venus energy is non-sexual beauty, harmony and
>>grace then it fits Libra but not Taurus.
>>
>>both!
>
Well I changed the meaning so it could fit Libra - but only to
demonstrate the yawning chasm between them.
> Love for things of beauty isn't always a full body trip.
>Where do we assign that? The social graces are something I think Venus
>in Libra handles beautifully.
Quite right - but there (my opinion!) you are just seeing Venus
(Aprodite) filtered through the sign of Libra NOT Venus in it's pure
form. To me Venus in Libra is like looking at Venus in any of the other
signs (except Taurus) i.e. you are only seeing Venus THROUGH that sign.
If you read the Aprodite myth you will see that this fits Taurus
beautifully and Libra not at all. So, I think Venus rules ONLY Taurus
because there it is operating in it's natural environment. Same goes
for Mercury and Gemini.
>
>There has to be a way air signs can express love (since they seem to
>be less interested in emotions as an experience- ie, Geminis have sex
>with words).
Sure - Venus filtered through those signs.
>
>"Pure" Venus seems to have several levels. In some ways I think it
>might be the most important planet. If it represents things of
>emotional value- money and love- and value systems, then this is the
>basis for our earthly existence. It is out of our value systems that
>we manifest the conditions in which we live.
I actually think that 'pure' Venus has only the Taurus level and all the
other levels are caused by interaction with the other signs. But I'm
happy to argue about it:)
Sue
maberry
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
When I oil
> paint and I know the "background" will be primarily blues or sky colored
> we always paint the canvas white FIRST because painters usually use
> primary colors, these colors (in this case something like Prussian blue)
> are then MIXED with the white to bring forth the light blue.
> Like this, the horoscope is a painting and the backdrop (the deeper
> aspect of the self and "background" consciousness) is brought forward
> AFTER we establish the "hue" of the persona-instead of mixing the colors
> to "paint" the picture, we "read" the colors to GET the picture.
> Thanks for your response.
> Ed
***********
Ed, I had to think about this with regard to absent energies or
singleton planets -- but then I looked at it this way. Let's say you
have a painting all in blues and greens -- and then one spot of red
somewhere (maybe a Mars in fire -- and the only fire energy in the
chart) -- in the painting, that red stands out from everything else!
And likewise in the chart, that Mars stands out. Do you think? So
could we then continue and say a complete lack of energy, say water
energy (call it blue) -- could be like looking at a painting full of
yellow, red, and black. We would feel the lack of the water -- but only
in so far as we had experienced it outside ourselves (parents? etc.?) or
only if we really thought about it? We would be so used to just living
without it, it might not even occur to us it was lacking??-- or we might
not be able to even "define" the lack of it, as it might be beyond our
experience---?
I really like this analogy using paints.
peace,
maberry
Edmond Wollmann
>From: Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:18:30 +0100
>Message-id: <E797pCAG...@denys.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <19970925153...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, EWollmann
><ewol...@aol.com> writes
>>>Sue Armitage wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
>>
>>incomplete versions, channeled concepts-no they cannot contain a "pure"
>version.
>>Dispositor dynamics and rulership applications PROVE the rulership of
>>Venus of Libra and Taurus and Mercury's double rulership as well.
>>I.e. if an individual has Libra or Taurus on 12, VENUS will be found
>>through examination of life events to have been the prominent factor
>>regarding events of that house.
>I know - but it is still a different sort of Venus depending on whether
>it is Taurus or Libra - and this is my whole argument!
It is different because of the ELEMENT. Air belongs to the trinity of
ideation and social interaction-Earth to the trinity of physicality. One
seeks to SOCIALLY reflect the Venusian qualities and one seeks TO
PERSONAL
POSSESIONIZE it. Of course they are different but it has 0 to do with
the
signs of Taurus and Libra being ruled by something else-it is simply a
different manifestation of the same ROOT PRIMAL ARCHETYPE VENUS.
> How can two
>different sorts of Venus still be Venus?
Study the element and modes they are the backdrop to the painting and
IMPOSSIBLE to do without. They are the foundation of ALL OF PHYSICAL
REALITY.
>> This astrology is not just an "oh I like
>>this planet ruling this or that" it can be OBSERVED (one of the key
>>elements of the scientific method) operationally (another aspect of the
>>scientific method) to be that. Blend science with your gut-it is not going
>>to hurt.
>:)) Ok, I'll try...... (you are being very patient with me Ed:)) But
>you see it really isn't me just 'liking' or not liking this. It keeps
>coming up. When I see Venus in Libra I interpret it completely
>differently than when I see it in Taurus. You aren't arguing with that,
>are you........
Sigh.......
>>When Saturn ruled Aquarius it was the best facsimilie to represent and
>>reflect the idea we were CAPABLE of percieving at the time. Like its
>>incomplete explanation for an archetypal reference at the time, so was the
>>ability to operationalize fully the archetype of Aquarius. This is my take
>>on the idea of changing the traditional plaetary rulerships-also guided by
>>whether a planet occupies an organized orbit based on AU's.
>>Thank you for your sharing and allowing me to.
>Ok, I'll shut up now :)
OK Have, fun and write when you are done:-)
You fiesty little Mars in Aries you!!! You do that on purpose just to
rile
the Lion.
--
"For a while we could sit, smoke a pipe and discuss all the vast
intricacies of life. Yeah we could jaw through the night talk about a
range
of subjects anything you like.........
But we always came back to the song we were singin' at any particular
time! Yeah we always came back to the song we were singin' at any
particular time! Yeeeeaaahhhhh Yeeeeaaahhh yeahhhhhhh hhhhheyyyyyyy
hheeeeyyyy!" Paul McCartney "Flaming Pie"
Fox Mulder
maberry wrote:
>
> So
> could we then continue and say a complete lack of energy, say water
> energy (call it blue) -- could be like looking at a painting full of
> yellow, red, and black. We would feel the lack of the water -- but only
> in so far as we had experienced it outside ourselves (parents? etc.?) or
> only if we really thought about it? We would be so used to just living
> without it, it might not even occur to us it was lacking??-- or we might
> not be able to even "define" the lack of it, as it might be beyond our
> experience---?
>
> maberry
Hi
don't know if this will shed any light on the above, but I have no
earth - grew up in Chicago - hated it, always wanted to live in the
country. Was restless and "blowing in the wind" constantly. The only
thing that eliminated this nagging need to "go" was to plant myself
where I am now, on 13 acres with 4 horses and 3 dogs. The career
end of it has nothing to do with the feeling of "being home." I
lived on a farm (rented a house) years ago and felt the same way -
that I was "home". I could find another means of support and never
in the least miss what I'm doing now. So, it's being on this piece
of ground that "grounds" me. I thought about this when I read the
post sometime back that the soul seeks out what it needs in others,
(I think it was Lynn) ... It's hard to determine whether it's the
lack of "earth" or moon in Sag! Maybe someone can shed more light!!!
Earl Baker
I did not write that Ed, please watch your attributions.
In article <34287D...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Earl Baker wrote:
>>
>> In article <nMAb4FA$m9J0...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
>> Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >I know this is controversial but I have been thinking of Chiron as the
>> >ruler of Virgo for some time. I have heard plenty of people argue
>> >against this but my opinion is that the myth fits Virgo very well
>> >indeed.
>
>The problem is that rationalizing can make anything fit-but the fact of
>the matter is Chiron's orbit does not allow it to be anything other than
>a bridge from Saturn to Uranus, and I find no corraboration from Chiron
>to Virgo and discrimination, discernment, critical thinking and
>pragmatic logic-Chiron allows us to be healed of Saturn and move to more
>expanded and self directed creative behavior-the transition from the
>limits of Saturn to the waking up at Uranus.
>This idea has 0 to do with Virgo.
Edmond Wollmann
Earl Baker wrote:
> I did not write that Ed, please watch your attributions.
Sorry didn't notice.
> In article <34287D...@aznet.net>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >Earl Baker wrote:
> >> In article <nMAb4FA$m9J0...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
> >> Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >I know this is controversial but I have been thinking of Chiron as the
> >> >ruler of Virgo for some time. I have heard plenty of people argue
> >> >against this but my opinion is that the myth fits Virgo very well
> >> >indeed.
> >The problem is that rationalizing can make anything fit-but the fact of
> >the matter is Chiron's orbit does not allow it to be anything other than
> >a bridge from Saturn to Uranus, and I find no corraboration from Chiron
> >to Virgo and discrimination, discernment, critical thinking and
> >pragmatic logic-Chiron allows us to be healed of Saturn and move to more
> >expanded and self directed creative behavior-the transition from the
> >limits of Saturn to the waking up at Uranus.
> >This idea has 0 to do with Virgo.
--
"But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
William Shakespeare, 1564-1616
Measure for Measure, II, ii.
maberry
Interesting Fox. I only have one earth (Saturn -- and never liked it
much -- it squares my moon-- but I've made a lot of progress here).
Also have a Sag moon. Lots of rootlessness in my life!! I have learned
to ground myself in myself, tho I really do like the country and animals
too. Very interesting.
Edmond Wollmann
Fox Mulder wrote:
> maberry wrote:
> > So
> > could we then continue and say a complete lack of energy, say water
> > energy (call it blue) -- could be like looking at a painting full of
> > yellow, red, and black. We would feel the lack of the water -- but only
> > in so far as we had experienced it outside ourselves (parents? etc.?)
I would say it is more like the blue is there, but we are colorblind
because we think blue is "bad". Therefore we only SEE the yellow, red
and black. But others see it, and see how we have issue with it, and can
see we DON'T see that.
> or
> > only if we really thought about it? We would be so used to just living
> > without it, it might not even occur to us it was lacking??
It's psychological overcompensation. Like Merv Griffin I believe has low
or no Air-so he overcompensates by being a talk show host, writing the
theme to Jeapordy and all sorts of things to try to allow himself to
BELIEVE in the intellectual social idea (Air). Hitler had no water, so
he had to get the emotional support of countries and many people to try
to believe he could FEEL something. All the while these person's
BEHAVIOR (action is the conviction of belief) demonstrated a disbelief
in the function they overcompensated with.
>-- or we might
> > not be able to even "define" the lack of it, as it might be beyond our
> > experience---?
No, it is acutely defined, it is an ISSUE thats why the balance is
off-the way to integration is the NON-issuing or equalization of "All
That Is". So person's who have balanced Elemental counts already TRUST
all the four ways of believing. This is outlined clearly and at great
length in my book I have 4 different chapters that deal with the four
dimensions template (The Cardinal points I spoke of in other posts) and
how this reflects beliefs and their momentum.
> > peace,
> > maberry
> Hi
> don't know if this will shed any light on the above, but I have no
> earth - grew up in Chicago - hated it, always wanted to live in the
> country. Was restless and "blowing in the wind" constantly.
This is the characteristic of no or low Earth- a disbelief or lack of a
belief in the "spirituality" of the Earth experience. Hence you will
have day-to-day instability to some degree-the belief is "the earth is a
"bad" place or a place where spirit cannot manifest" therefore you may
want to "hurry up and get out of here" no matter where it is:-)
> The only
> thing that eliminated this nagging need to "go" was to plant myself
> where I am now, on 13 acres with 4 horses and 3 dogs. The career
> end of it has nothing to do with the feeling of "being home." I
> lived on a farm (rented a house) years ago and felt the same way -
> that I was "home". I could find another means of support and never
> in the least miss what I'm doing now. So, it's being on this piece
> of ground that "grounds" me.
Yes, it is through that "grounding" that you are learning to see and
believe that "Of the Earth" is ALSO spiritual-and then you will ALLOW
yourself to "feeel" (believe" you ARE grounded.
> I thought about this when I read the
> post sometime back that the soul seeks out what it needs in others,
> (I think it was Lynn) ...
Well, yes, the soul with little self awareness, but one with great
awareness knows it is all right here right now-so it "needs to look"
nowhere but within.
> It's hard to determine whether it's the
> lack of "earth" or moon in Sag! Maybe someone can shed more light!!!
The moon in Sagittarius has a very strong need to have the beliefs and
opinions accepted by others-lack of Earth may allow you to create ideas
with little pragmatic applicability (or you may overcompensate and exact
material perfection) so that you may go through much effort to also
anchor your ideas to ensure they will be accepted. A total lack of Earth
DOES exact perfection and a need to have everything just so-as an
overcompensation to "ground"-see?
I hope this is helpful, I answered a lot of these already but cynics and
enemies got them canceled-sorry if I don't see them all now, I wiped
them out on this server because I answered them on the other. Those who
were conversing with me on AOL, you will have to repost or rewrite me I
lost access to all my mail and page and all my info.
--
"Christ you know it aint easy, you know how hard it can be, the way
things are going, they're gonna crucify me!" John Lennon
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
Fox Mulder
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Fox Mulder wrote:
>
>>
> > Hi
>
> > don't know if this will shed any light on the above, but I have no
> > earth - grew up in Chicago - hated it, always wanted to live in the
> > country. Was restless and "blowing in the wind" constantly.
>
> This is the characteristic of no or low Earth- a disbelief or lack of a
> belief in the "spirituality" of the Earth experience. Hence you will
> have day-to-day instability to some degree-the belief is "the earth is a
> "bad" place or a place where spirit cannot manifest" therefore you may
> want to "hurry up and get out of here" no matter where it is:-)
>
>
> believe that "Of the Earth" is ALSO spiritual-and then you will ALLOW
> yourself to "feeel" (believe" you ARE grounded.
>
>
> opinions accepted by others-lack of Earth may allow you to create ideas
> with little pragmatic applicability (or you may overcompensate and exact
> material perfection) so that you may go through much effort to also
> anchor your ideas to ensure they will be accepted. A total lack of Earth
> DOES exact perfection and a need to have everything just so-as an
> overcompensation to "ground"-see?
> I hope this is helpful, I answered a lot of these already but cynics and
> enemies got them canceled-sorry if I don't see them all now, I wiped
>
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> Astrological Consulting
Good Morning Ed:
Thank you, I can understand the absence of earth giving that nagging
feeling to "get out of here"...that makes sense to me. I've never
thought of myself as wanting things "just so" so that's still being
debated in my head *G*, as far as creating ideas with little pragmatic
applicability...well, let me tell you! Some of them have been real
winners! But rather than not having any applicability...I seemed to
decide to do things, which had I taken a more conservative course,
probably would have worked, but I would absolutely jump on in WAY over
my head...biting off more than I could chew!
see ya!
Lady Nidiffer
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
<342C6E...@aznet.net>...
<snip>
> I hope this is helpful, I answered a lot of these already but cynics and
> enemies got them canceled-sorry if I don't see them all now, I wiped
> them out on this server because I answered them on the other. Those who
> were conversing with me on AOL, you will have to repost or rewrite me I
> lost access to all my mail and page and all my info.
> --
No, Edmond, *you* got them cancelled.
*You* lost your account by your own actions.
But, Ed, there's hope!
petejanREMOVETHIS reposted a lot of them.
Just look under NET TERRORIST
--
Lady Nidiffer,
Fox Mulder
In article <3433B1...@aznet.net>, woll...@aznet.net says...
> >From: Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com>
> >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:22:29 -0600
> >Message-id: <34270B...@XFiles.com>
>
> >Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> >> I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
> >> discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
> >> exalted in detriment or fall.
> >> Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
> >> views are warmly welcomed:-)
> >> Thanks
>
> >I'm interested *G* and will be here.
>
> The Sun represents the life energy and center or singularity of the
> self. In solar astrology it IS the ascendant, the beginning and the
...still here lurking *G* also living through Pluto conjunct moon, trine
sun; Uranus sq M.C.; Saturn sq. Mercury (it really is a good time to
study!) and other assorted "minor jolts". Also still printing posts *G*
Kevin Burk
First off, I've been away for a bit and do want to acknowledge that I'm
jumping into this discussion in the middle...and rather than quoting any
past articles, I'm just responding to a random message and will try and
address some of the points that I've read so far.
For those of you who don't know my approach to astrology, for the
record, I'm very much a classical/neo-classical astrologer; for the
purpose of this thread, that means that I do not personally find any
validity at all in any of the "modern" rulers.
My issue with the question of "modern" rulers is primarily this: few
"modern" astrologers have any understanding of the foundation of their
techniques. The "modern" approach to astrology only reflects a very
scaled-down repertoire of techniques from what were commonly in use in
ancient Greece and Egypt, and even as recently as the 17th and 18th
centuries when William Lilly resurrected many of the classical
techniques.
What has happened is that "modern" astrology has lost all connection and
understanding with what planetary "dignity" really indicated. This is
more significant than simply "forgetting" that there are FIVE Essential
Dignities - Rulership, Exaltation, Triplicity, Term and Face. (True,
there is precious little information on how these dignities were used,
but thanks to Project Hindsight, and especially thanks to J. Lee Lehman,
much more material is now available to help modern astrologers explore
these techniques.) What has happened is that somewhere in the last 100
years, "rulership" was taken to mean that a planet is most like a given
sign. (I.E., Mercury "rules" Gemini because Mercury is the most like
Gemini).
This approach may certainly have some advantages, and if, as Lee Lehman
writes, it had simply been called "affinities" or something other than
"rulerships" we wouldn't have the mess that we have today.
In classical terms, when a planet is in the sign that it rules, it is
the master of its own domain - it sets its own agenda and is free to
pursue its own destiny. A planet in the sign of its Exaltation was
considered to be like an honored guest - it isn't in charge of its own
agenda, but at the same time, the other planets will go out of their way
to arrange things for the benefit of that planet. A planet in its own
Triplicity was considered to be lucky - it indicated some skill and
ability, but also the knack of being in the right place at the right
time with respect to that planet. A planet in its own Terms is
described by Lee Lehman as being sort of a "blue collar" worker - it
indicates an interest in the affairs of that planet, but not necessarily
any skill. Face was considered to be the weakest of the Essential
Dignities, and in fact, was almost considered to be a debility rather
than a dignity; planets in their own Face seem to be associated with
fear.
In _Essential Dignities_, J. Lee Lehman points out that there are really
two types of "Rulership" - Type I Rulers (or natural rulers - such as
Neptune ruling drugs and petrolium products), and Type II Rulers (or
Essential Dignities).
Personally, I aggree wholeheartedly with assigning Natural Rulers to the
new bodies - including Chiron (which rules Healers, particularly healers
who work with their hands, like Chiropractors - which incidentally has
the same root as Chiron). However, the use of "modern" sign rulerships
and the random attempts to assign new rulerships is to me pointless.
First of all, the concept of "affinity" is strongly related to Zip
Dobbin's "Astrological Alphabet" which I personally feel is one of the
most unfortunate developments in astrology. The idea of creating a
shorthand way of understanding keywords is sound, but the upshot is that
many astrologers feel that Aries, Mars and the 1st House are
interchangeable since they are all "letter 1" in the Astrological
Alphabet, and this is simply not the case. The Planets do not equal the
Signs or the Houses.
Second of all, I have yet to dialogue with an astrologer who advocates
"modern" rulerships who has been able to share with me exactly how he or
she uses these "rulerships" to enhance the interpretation or
understanding of a chart. How does a planet in a sign that it rules
differ in the way that it expresses itself from when it's in another
planet's sign?
Some astrologers, led by Barbara Hand Clow, seem to want to assign the
"rulership" of Virgo to Chiron; again, I ask the purpose of this?
Forgetting for the moment that as affinities go, I personally think that
Chiron and Virgo are a particularly poor fit (and don't even get me
started on Uranus and Aquarius!), how would this new "rulership"
possibly function as a practical technique?
The Classical rulerships and essential dignities can be demonstrated
practically as "working" when used in Horary Astrology (which is really
the foundation of all astrology). In other words, using the classical
rulers, one can find the correct answer to a Horary question; can the
same be said for the "modern" rulers? I know that March and McKevers
use the "modern" rulers in their Horary and Electional work and they
seem to feel that this approach is valid. I have yet to experiment with
them myself.
Again, please excuse my rambling thoughts - this is a topic that I find
fascinating, and what I've seen of the discussion so far has been
refreshingly mature. :-)
Peace,
Kevin
--
******REMOVE "X" FROM E-MAIL ADDRESS WHEN REPLYING*****
*****************************************************************
mailto:kb...@astro-horoscopes.com
http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/~kburk
Astrological Horoscopes & Forecasts
P. O. Box 16098 San Diego, CA 92176 (619) 221-5534
*****************************************************************
Kevin Burk
Sue Armitage wrote:
>
> In article <34311bcc...@news.mindspring.com>, ?@?.? writes
> >
> >>> Venus and Libra have a great to do with social
> >>>interaction. I hadn't thought of it in these terms before now, but
> >>>here again we have the same pattern as above. From Libra we get the
> >>>quality of discrimination; Taurus is more interested in quantity. And
> >>>you're right- Venus energy can also be ferocious.
> >>
> >>Venus energy is embodied by the Aphrodite myth then it clearly applies
> >>Libra at all. If pure Venus energy is non-sexual beauty, harmony and
> >>grace then it fits Libra but not Taurus.
> >>
>
> Quite right - but there (my opinion!) you are just seeing Venus
> (Aprodite) filtered through the sign of Libra NOT Venus in it's pure
> form. To me Venus in Libra is like looking at Venus in any of the other
> signs (except Taurus) i.e. you are only seeing Venus THROUGH that sign.
> If you read the Aprodite myth you will see that this fits Taurus
> beautifully and Libra not at all. So, I think Venus rules ONLY Taurus
> because there it is operating in it's natural environment. Same goes
> for Mercury and Gemini.
> >
> >There has to be a way air signs can express love (since they seem to
> >be less interested in emotions as an experience- ie, Geminis have sex
> >with words).
>
> Sure - Venus filtered through those signs.
> >
> >"Pure" Venus seems to have several levels. In some ways I think it
> >might be the most important planet. If it represents things of
> >emotional value- money and love- and value systems, then this is the
> >basis for our earthly existence. It is out of our value systems that
> >we manifest the conditions in which we live.
>
> I actually think that 'pure' Venus has only the Taurus level and all the
> other levels are caused by interaction with the other signs. But I'm
> happy to argue about it:)
>
> Sue
Sue,
If I might put in my (rambling) two cents. :-)
Taurus represents sensual beauty; Libra aestetic beauty. Aphrodite, as
related to beauty, encompasses both.
The planet Venus represents the forces of cohesion - of like attracting
like. Venus is also, obviously, the planet of relationships and
relating. Taurus does not mirror this function because Taurus is not
aware that there are other individuals to relate to in the first place.
The first sign that enables us to see other individuals as separate and
distinct from oursleves is Libra. Libra's energy is about balance and
relationship in all forms.
Now, from a Classical/Essential Dignity standpoint, it's interesting to
note that in a Day Chart, Saturn is the Almuten (most dignified planet)
for all of the sign of Libra - and Venus is only equal in essential
dignity to Saturn for 6 - 10 degrees of Libra (again, in a day chart).
Venus is much stronger in a night chart because Saturn is only the Day
Triplicity ruler for Air signs.
As far as "pure" planets go, this to me is a rather impossible concept.
We can never experience the "pure" energy of a planet because we are
always experiencing that planet in a sign. Again, a classical
sidenote: the Greeks considered that the Planets gave form and filtered
the expression of the SIGNS and not the other way around; in other
words, it's not that our experience of Venus is different when it's in
Libra, it's that our experience of LIBRA is changed and given form by
Venus when Venus is in Libra.
June Wakefield, in her (out of print) book _Cosmic Astrology_ proposes
what I think is the single most elegant system of "rulership" that I've
ever seen. It begins with the Sun, which is the source of all light and
life in the universe; the Sun then expresses through three "Secondary
Suns" - Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, each of which rules a different
"plane of existance" - Uranus rules the Plane of Matter, Neptune the
Plane of the Mind, and Pluto the Plane of Life.
Each of the "Secondary Suns" expresses through two planets, which in
turn express through two signs each - one masculine, one feminine - and
the four signs together represent one of each of the four elements.
Uranus, then expresses through Saturn and the Earth (Sun)-Moon Diad.
Saturn expresses through Capricorn (Feminine Earth) and Aquarius
(Masculine Air), while the Earth/Moon diad expresses through Leo
(Masculine Fire) and Cancer (Feminie Water).
Neptune expresses through Mercury and Jupiter. Mercury, of course
expresses through Gemini (Masculine Air) and Virgo (Feminine Earth)
while Jupiter expresses through Sagittarius (Masculine Fire) and Pisces
(Feminie Water).
Pluto expresses through Mars and Venus. Mars expresses through Aries
(Masculine Fire) and Scorpio (Feminine Water), while Venus expresses
through Taurus (Feminine Earth) and Libra (Masculine Air).
This also supports the "planetary opposites" of Mars-Venus,
Mercury-Jupiter and Earth(Sun)/Moon-Saturn.
I guess, for me, it just makes perfect sense that each planet would
"rule" two signs - one masculine and one feminine - to enable it to
express its full nature.
But again, back to the nature of Venus - it is nothing without
relationship. Aphrodite is nothing without someone to love her or
worship her beauty (and her dependence on this goes a long way towards
revealing the motivation for many of her mythological activities!).
Venus is a mirror and without an object to reflect, to relate to, Venus
can't exist. Taurus does not embody this facet of Venus; Libra does.
Marsha
Kevin Burk wrote:
....
>
> But again, back to the nature of Venus - it is nothing without
> relationship. Aphrodite is nothing without someone to love her or
> worship her beauty (and her dependence on this goes a long way towards
> revealing the motivation for many of her mythological activities!).
> Venus is a mirror and without an object to reflect, to relate to,
> Venus can't exist. Taurus does not embody this facet of Venus; Libra
> does.
> Peace,
>
> Kevin
I can see the two sides of Venus--Attracting and Enjoying.
With Libra she's most concerned with attraction--social graces, pleasing
others, making things appear attractive--all directed towards others.
With Taurus her purpose is enjoyment of whatever is seen as attractive
which is also beautiful, graceful and pleasing because she's Venus and
that's what she enjoys. It could be anything...
I don't think either sign is limited to one side. Both signs have both
sides of Venus, it's just that one side is more outwardly expressed in
each sign.
That's how I see Venus.
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann
>From: Fox Mulder <fm...@XFiles.com>
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:22:29 -0600
>Message-id: <34270B...@XFiles.com>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> I will be interpreting each planet and its dignity etc. and we can
>> discuss why or why not certain planets in certain signs are either
>> exalted in detriment or fall.
>> Anyone interested please post and comment. Contrary to recent spins all
>> views are warmly welcomed:-)
>> Thanks
>I'm interested *G* and will be here.
The Sun represents the life energy and center or singularity of the
self. In solar astrology it IS the ascendant, the beginning and the
physicality-the moon, the part not. Capricorn strategizes to manipulate
physicality to serve the conscious self, the moon sooths and flows to
support the psyche, hence this combination can be seen to be
contradictory.
Emotions are not accepted symbiotically but dealt with consciously. This
may make it difficult for the experiencer to see things that others get,
the gist of about the self.
--
"I was sittin in the classroom, trying to look intelligent in case the
teacher looked at me. She was long and she was lean! She's a middle aged
dream, and that lady means the whole world to me. It's a natural
achievement, conquering my homework with her image, pounding in my
brain! She's an inspiration! For my graduation, and she helps to keep
the classroom sane! Oh teacher I need you, like a little child, you've
got something in you to drive a schoolboy wild. You give me education
and the lovesick blues-help me get straight come out and say teacher
I-teacher I-teacher I need you!!!" Elton John "Teacher I need You"
--
Ewollmann
Fox Mulder wrote:
> ...still here lurking *G* also living through Pluto conjunct moon, trine
> sun; Uranus sq M.C.; Saturn sq. Mercury (it really is a good time to
> study!) and other assorted "minor jolts". Also still printing posts *G*
Well I posted up to Venus with no comments (those on going on another
thread now), so I will work on some more this weekend with Mars etc..
Thanks for lurking and waiting:-) Also some on Rx perhaps.
Have to leave the lab now,
Hasta!
EHW
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
....
> The Sun represents the life energy and center or singularity of the
> self. In solar astrology it IS the ascendant, the beginning and the
> thrust of the identity. Since all of life stems from its focus and
> consistency, it is the ideal as far as an identity, because it assumes
> positive control. Since it is a necessity for continuity for the
> identity or any idea to create and recreate itself anew, its
> exaltation in Aries is easy to understand.
> Because Libra is a reflective and accommodating sign, it signifies
> the waning of the power of the sun and its commanding role (sunset).
> It is receptive and seeks to reinforce identity through merging
> shadows and reflected aspects of the self-the relaxation of assertion
> and conscious center to allow the incorporation of reflected versions
> of the self. This
> is contradictory to the glowing center of conscious focus of which the
> sun is about. Therefore it is easy to understand its fall in this
> sign. A word of caution however, the Sun as well as the gas giant
> planets are less likely to be problematic in the sign of their
> detriment or fall.
What are the gas giant planets?
> This is because the effect of rulers and dispositors is an effect of
> the
> polarization of things into dark/light, projection/reception etc. in
> physicality.
And the Moon?
> Therefore the planets of persona (an artificial construct
> as well from the effect of ego focus in physicality) are much more
> conflictive when in their signs of fall and detriment. These are the
> planets Venus, Mars, Mercury. Since the planets act as "lenses" that
> "focus" signs into our system for use in this system, it is in these
> focused realms that displacement may be most problematic.
> The Moon reflects the light of the sun and acts as a reservoir to
> contain all those aspects of our consciousness that we may not be
> aware of or dealing with in a conscious and focused way. Therefore its
> ruler, Cancer, is fluid-a "pool" of concepts and beliefs we maintain
> about reality that have been patterned and nurtured (or deprived of
> nurturance) as references that allow us to feel (believe) that we are
> supported and nurtured. Since Taurus is the sign reflecting access to
> the resourcefulness of the Multiverse and the ability to rely on
> physicality for that support, the moon is comfortable here in its
> values and beliefs it maintains to support the conscious self (Sun).
> Capricorn is reflective of the full manifestation of the self in
> physicality-the moon, the part not. Capricorn strategizes to
> manipulate physicality to serve the conscious self, the moon sooths
> and flows to support the psyche, hence this combination can be seen to
> be contradictory.
> Emotions are not accepted symbiotically but dealt with consciously.
Then it sounds like the Moon being in a sign that deals with emotions
consciously (first?)--earth or air? would be less problematic for the
person themselves than in a water or fire sign? Or maybe just water?
> This may make it difficult for the experiencer to see things that
> others get, the gist of about the self.
difficult for the one that deals with it consciously?
> --
> "I was sittin in the classroom, trying to look intelligent in case the
> teacher looked at me. She was long and she was lean! She's a middle
> aged dream, and that lady means the whole world to me. It's a natural
> achievement, conquering my homework with her image, pounding in my
> brain! She's an inspiration! For my graduation, and she helps to keep
> the classroom sane! Oh teacher I need you, like a little child, you've
> got something in you to drive a schoolboy wild. You give me education
> and the lovesick blues-help me get straight come out and say teacher
> I-teacher I-teacher I need you!!!" Elton John "Teacher I need You"
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> Astrological Consulting
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann
Marsha wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
....
The Sun represents the life energy and center or singularity of the
self. In solar astrology it IS the ascendant, the beginning and the
thrust of the identity. Since all of life stems from its focus and
consistency, it is the ideal as far as an identity, because it assumes
positive control. Since it is a necessity for continuity for the
identity or any idea to create and recreate itself anew, its
exaltation in Aries is easy to understand.
Because Libra is a reflective and accommodating sign, it signifies
the waning of the power of the sun and its commanding role (sunset).
It is receptive and seeks to reinforce identity through merging
shadows and reflected aspects of the self-the relaxation of assertion
and conscious center to allow the incorporation of reflected versions
of the self. This
is contradictory to the glowing center of conscious focus of which the
sun is about. Therefore it is easy to understand its fall in this
sign. A word of caution however, the Sun as well as the gas giant
planets are less likely to be problematic in the sign of their
detriment or fall.
> What are the gas giant planets?
These are the planets that are gaseous-Jupiter through Neptune, they
reflect archetypal themes in physicality-not focused aspects of the
person-ality as do the rocky planets or inner planets-Pluto is a whole
other animal and is crystallization of the higher self from the
oversoul.
> > This is because the effect of rulers and dispositors is an effect of
> > the
> > polarization of things into dark/light, projection/reception etc. in
> > physicality.
> And the Moon?
The moon is the PERSONAL as opposed to colective archetypal
consciousness "resevoir" you might say. It reflects the separation of
the sexes and the conscious mind from the unconscious. The moon
reflecting the personal unconscious is where we place ideas and beliefs
we are not willing or ready to fully deal with with conscious
commandment (Mercury).
Well it depends-typically the moon in Capricorn does not trust INSTINCT
which is what the moon reflects-therfore the need to be strategically
effective is the mistrust of allowing and having to "make sure" things
go as "planned". The instinctual moon (when positive) allows the person
to go with the flow so to speak, still be conscious of it, but act
intuitively rather than having to know every little detail in order to
trust. This would reflect a more integral masculine (SUN) and feminine
(MOON) conscious and unconscious blending and trust as a wholistically
functioning persona.
> > This may make it difficult for the experiencer to see things that
> > others get, the gist of about the self.
> difficult for the one that deals with it consciously?
Yes, the person with the moon in Capricorn or so configuered with Saturn
etc.
--
"Its the end of the world as we know it-and I feel fine!" REM
http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/
Kevin Burk <Xkb...@astro-horoscopes.com> wrote:
>My issue with the question of "modern" rulers is primarily this: few
>"modern" astrologers have any understanding of the foundation of their
>techniques. The "modern" approach to astrology only reflects a very
>scaled-down repertoire of techniques from what were commonly in use in
>ancient Greece and Egypt, and even as recently as the 17th and 18th
>centuries when William Lilly resurrected many of the classical
>techniques.
pete comments: I certainly do agree about the Greece part, but there
isn't anything being posted here on alt.astrology that has anything
to do with Pre Grecian astrology. Nothing is being posted here
about LUNAR astrology, so why do you refernce Egyptian. And
also be aware that the only thing being used that was Grecian is
a "tropical" zodiac that wasn't in use in Ancient Greece (ever).
>
>What has happened is that "modern" astrology has lost all connection and
>understanding with what planetary "dignity" really indicated. This is
>more significant than simply "forgetting" that there are FIVE Essential
>Dignities - Rulership, Exaltation, Triplicity, Term and Face. (True,
>there is precious little information on how these dignities were used,
>but thanks to Project Hindsight, and especially thanks to J. Lee Lehman,
>much more material is now available to help modern astrologers explore
>these techniques.)
Pete comments: project hindsight has denied the existence of the sidreal
zodiac predating the tropical zodiac no one ever heard of before the
third century AD. Hence, there is a taint here. It is possible that
Robert Hand is being intellectually dishonest when he insists the
tropical zodiac with it's ever moving fiduciary was known to anyone
prior to Hipparchus. So the value of project hindsight is the value
of a personal opinon of a person who is trying to overcome the
reality of what actually exists up in the sky.
What has happened is that somewhere in the last 100
>years, "rulership" was taken to mean that a planet is most like a given
>sign. (I.E., Mercury "rules" Gemini because Mercury is the most like
>Gemini).
Pete comments: today's tropical zodiac SIGN of Gemini has the start
Castro and Pollux, the Gemine Twins in Cancer. Now why would
anyone want to put the Gemini twins in Cancer. But this is the
basis of what tropicalists are saying actually exists up in the sky.
This is nonsense and has nothing to do with the actual astrological
influence found the sky. The astrological influence now called
Gemini which actually exists up in the sky also contains the two
stars Castro and Pollux. And of course, the influence of this
astrological influence that exists in the sky and that is called
Gemin today, does have an influence similiar to the influence
of the planet Mercury. However, in order to know this, one
has to do horoscopes other than your own.
>
>This approach may certainly have some advantages, and if, as Lee Lehman
>writes, it had simply been called "affinities" or something other than
>"rulerships" we wouldn't have the mess that we have today.
Pete comments: I'm certainl relieved to know that an astrologcal
reality is even consdiered by this group. As for it being a mess,
astrology isn't a mess, just those who claim to be astrologers
have the right to that title - especially those who claim the
tropical zodiac was actually used by astrologers prior to
300 AD.
>
>In classical terms, when a planet is in the sign that it rules, it is
>the master of its own domain - it sets its own agenda and is free to
>pursue its own destiny.
pete comments: No, this was never true. The classical concept was that say
Mercury in Gemini would have an enhanced Mercury influence. But that
is exactly the truth of the matter, and is what works today.
That is it works when you use the astrological influence of Gemini,
the one with Castro and Pollux still there.
A planet in the sign of its Exaltation was
>considered to be like an honored guest - it isn't in charge of its own
>agenda, but at the same time, the other planets will go out of their way
>to arrange things for the benefit of that planet.
Pete commens: to date, no one has ever solved the mysteries of
the Exaltations. One thing that has been proven time after time
is that a plant withing it's exaltation doesn't exalt in any way.
In fact, the little work that has been done on the historical
source of the exaltations suggest they had to do with the
re orientation of the zodiac to it's present state. So, a
planet in it's exaltation is merely a planet in it's exaltation.
NOthing more, nothing less. It certainly does't have any
extra astrological influence added.
A planet in its own
>Triplicity was considered to be lucky - it indicated some skill and
>ability, but also the knack of being in the right place at the right
>time with respect to that planet. A planet in its own Terms is
>described by Lee Lehman as being sort of a "blue collar" worker - it
>indicates an interest in the affairs of that planet, but not necessarily
>any skill. Face was considered to be the weakest of the Essential
>Dignities, and in fact, was almost considered to be a debility rather
>than a dignity; planets in their own Face seem to be associated with
>fear.
>
Pete comments: why not. Nothing here is concrete. Nothing
obective, and certainly nothing that has anything to do with
the astrology found in the sky.
>In _Essential Dignities_, J. Lee Lehman points out that there are really
>two types of "Rulership" - Type I Rulers (or natural rulers - such as
>Neptune ruling drugs and petrolium products), and Type II Rulers (or
>Essential Dignities).
Pete comments: Neptune does not rule Drugs and petroliun products.
At least that is the finding of those who have cast the charts of
substance abusers. Mercury/Mars is the astro signature of the
substance abuser. Neptune is the planet of psychic reception.,
Petrolium products are not pshchic. IF you don't believe the
part about Neptune being the planet of psychic reception, then
do the charts of tropical astrologers. They are all strong Neptunians.
Do the charts before you do the PMAFA personal attack astrology
bit in response.
>
>Personally, I aggree wholeheartedly with assigning Natural Rulers to the
>new bodies - including Chiron (which rules Healers, particularly healers
>who work with their hands, like Chiropractors - which incidentally has
>the same root as Chiron). However, the use of "modern" sign rulerships
>and the random attempts to assign new rulerships is to me pointless.
Pete comments: Chiron rules healers? How odd. I wonder if you could
give some birth data to back up this point. All the healers I have
charted were very strong Mars/Uranus/Neptunes. Most of the time
with a large dash of Pluto. So where do you get this Chiron
conclusion? If fact, where do you find any evidence that Chiron
has an astrologica effect? Other than from tropical housologists
who don't use what's up in the sky in any event.
>
>First of all, the concept of "affinity" is strongly related to Zip
>Dobbin's "Astrological Alphabet" which I personally feel is one of the
>most unfortunate developments in astrology. The idea of creating a
>shorthand way of understanding keywords is sound, but the upshot is that
>many astrologers feel that Aries, Mars and the 1st House are
>interchangeable since they are all "letter 1" in the Astrological
>Alphabet, and this is simply not the case. The Planets do not equal the
>Signs or the Houses.
Pete comments: nothing wrong with this. Anything that keeps one away
from doing actual charts, charts that use what's up in the sky, has
to be acceptable. No need to rock the boat.
>
>Second of all, I have yet to dialogue with an astrologer who advocates
>"modern" rulerships who has been able to share with me exactly how he or
>she uses these "rulerships" to enhance the interpretation or
>understanding of a chart. How does a planet in a sign that it rules
>differ in the way that it expresses itself from when it's in another
>planet's sign?
Pete comments: Bingo!!! You finally hit some true astrology. Yes,
ephatically yes, the astrological influence of a planet within
an astrologcal influence is changed. And example. When
you have a Venus in Aries, you have a bold Venus. A venus
in Taurus is Venusian to the limit of it's ability to be Venus.
A venus in Capricorn is an uncertain venus, seeking
constant reassurance that it is loved, and so on. This
is true of all the planets. How do you think you get
TAureans, Gemini, etc for the entire 12. As far as
the astrological influences being portable - say Merury
in Scropiso adding a Merucry flavor to Scorpio, it just
doesn't work that way. The planet is influenced, not
the astrological energy. Do some charts, check it
out for yourself instead of believing what other have
told you might be true.
>
>Some astrologers, led by Barbara Hand Clow, seem to want to assign the
>"rulership" of Virgo to Chiron; again, I ask the purpose of this?
>Forgetting for the moment that as affinities go, I personally think that
>Chiron and Virgo are a particularly poor fit (and don't even get me
>started on Uranus and Aquarius!), how would this new "rulership"
>possibly function as a practical technique?
Pete comments: surely you jest. Where is one shred of evidence
that chiron actually affects us astrologically? As far as Uranus
in Aquarius, it is the best fit. What do you suggest?
>
>The Classical rulerships and essential dignities can be demonstrated
>practically as "working" when used in Horary Astrology (which is really
>the foundation of all astrology). In other words, using the classical
>rulers, one can find the correct answer to a Horary question; can the
>same be said for the "modern" rulers? I know that March and McKevers
>use the "modern" rulers in their Horary and Electional work and they
>seem to feel that this approach is valid. I have yet to experiment with
>them myself.
Pete comments: finally comes the dawn. Horary astrology is pure
psychic reception, nothing more or less. Horary astrology makes no
claim to using anything astrological to divine the answer to a
question. It is pure housology - and everyone one who has studied
the subject has rejected house systems as being non astrological.
Sue Armitage
In article <343385...@astro-horoscopes.com>, Kevin Burk
<Xkb...@astro-horoscopes.com> writes
>
>
>Sue,
>
>If I might put in my (rambling) two cents. :-)
Hi Kevin. I think you ramble beautifully:) I have been away a week but
just read your other post in this thread and would really like to talk
about this.
>
>Taurus represents sensual beauty; Libra aestetic beauty. Aphrodite, as
>related to beauty, encompasses both.
But, you see, Aphrodite absolutely DOESN'T represent aesthetic beauty.
Her only duty as a Goddess was to make love. She wore a golden girdle
so that she could have any man she wanted - she was beautiful, yes, but
the reason for that beauty was sexual and only sexual. This, of course,
is just a myth but it is at the basis of my understanding of Venus and
this is what is severely bugging me!
>
>The planet Venus represents the forces of cohesion - of like attracting
>like. Venus is also, obviously, the planet of relationships and
>relating.
Yes - and the sign that it is in will signify the manner of relating...
> Taurus does not mirror this function because Taurus is not
>aware that there are other individuals to relate to in the first place.
I was always under the impression that Taurus (or at least Venus in
Taurus!) related in a primarily sexual - or at least earthy - way. Very
tactile, that sort of thing. Are you saying that this isn't relating or
this isn't due to Taurus? I always put this down to the Aphrodite
factor and therefore assumed it was due to Venus. (Call it affinity not
rulership, if you like:)
>
>The first sign that enables us to see other individuals as separate and
>distinct from oursleves is Libra. Libra's energy is about balance and
>relationship in all forms.
Absolutely - but this does not fit the Aphrodite myth as she was pretty
much unbalanced (as far as I can make out :). Maybe you think this
doesn't matter. Maybe I am the only person in the world it does matter
to!
>
>Now, from a Classical/Essential Dignity standpoint, it's interesting to
>note that in a Day Chart, Saturn is the Almuten (most dignified planet)
>for all of the sign of Libra - and Venus is only equal in essential
>dignity to Saturn for 6 - 10 degrees of Libra (again, in a day chart).
>Venus is much stronger in a night chart because Saturn is only the Day
>Triplicity ruler for Air signs.
>
>As far as "pure" planets go, this to me is a rather impossible concept.
>We can never experience the "pure" energy of a planet because we are
>always experiencing that planet in a sign. Again, a classical
>sidenote: the Greeks considered that the Planets gave form and filtered
>the expression of the SIGNS and not the other way around; in other
>words, it's not that our experience of Venus is different when it's in
>Libra, it's that our experience of LIBRA is changed and given form by
>Venus when Venus is in Libra.
Well I think that's how I think of it anyway and the reason I see the
affinity of Taurus and Venus is that, if you look at Aphrodite, there is
(my opinion!) a considerable likeness and so Taurus is NOT changed by
Venus because they are essentially the same.
I have a thing I do called Life Theme planets which uses affinities. (I
think I may have made it up - but I'm not entirely sure that someone
else hasn't got there as well so I won't claim it entirely as my own!)
It is too complicated to explain here but I just thought I would throw
this in to show you that there are modern astrologers who use affinities
to enhance an interpretation :)
>
>
>But again, back to the nature of Venus - it is nothing without
>relationship. Aphrodite is nothing without someone to love her or
>worship her beauty (and her dependence on this goes a long way towards
>revealing the motivation for many of her mythological activities!).
>Venus is a mirror and without an object to reflect, to relate to, Venus
>can't exist. Taurus does not embody this facet of Venus; Libra does.
Well OK. I quite like that argument.:) It will do until we have
another planet to rule Libra ;-)
Sue
Christine Lydon
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>C4A (Ken) wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:29:23 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>> > I tried to use the analogy of a light (sign) and that the
>> > "light" is then FOCUSED by the planet like a lens. This analogy I
>> > utilize through my book. Remember the further out we go in orbit,
>> > the deeper into the psyche we go-so that the area of space
>> > designated a "sign" is deeper than where the planets reside so to
>> > speak. Therefore, the "light" coming from deep within the self is
>> > focused through the lens of the planet. When Mercury is in Virgo
>> > for example, it means that the lens (planet) is COMPATIBLE or best
>> > focuses the light of Virgo. Lets say blue light going through a
>> > blue lens will be undistorted, so we get a good representation of
>> > "blue" when blue light is shown through a blue lens. But if we put
>> > blue light through a yellow or blueblocker lens with say a fisheye
>> > format (meaning a very wide angle) not only will the blue be
>> > distorted if not altogether removed, but the view would be
>> > distorted as well. This would be analogous to say Mercury in Picses
>> >where the conscious mind functions of focus and clarity for
>> > physical world duality application may be confused by emotional
>> > considerations-see?
>> This is interesting, and I'm not sure it makes any difference, but I
>> use exactly the reverse (planet rules a sign or two, signs
>> modify/modulate how the planets express), but the end result in
>> interpretation looks like it would be the same.
>
>Well, the reason I do it this way is because the solar system (and
>therefore the person-ality functions) become less and less focused and
>deeper in the psyche as we move out from the system center-the Sun. <snip>
>
>> I'd never considered your approach until I saw you post some things a
>> few weeks back.
>> Ken
>
>Trust me, planets focus the energy of the signs, this is why elemental
>count needs to be the first consideration in the horoscope. When I oil
>paint and I know the "background" will be primarily blues or sky colored
>we always paint the canvas white FIRST because painters usually use
>primary colors, these colors (in this case something like Prussian blue)
>are then MIXED with the white to bring forth the light blue.
>Like this, the horoscope is a painting and the backdrop (the deeper
>aspect of the self and "background" consciousness) is brought forward
>AFTER we establish the "hue" of the persona-instead of mixing the colors
>to "paint" the picture, we "read" the colors to GET the picture.
>Thanks for your response.
>Ed
Then in another post, Kevin Burke wrote:
> <snip> As far as "pure" planets go, this to me is a rather impossible concept.
>We can never experience the "pure" energy of a planet because we are
>always experiencing that planet in a sign. Again, a classical
>sidenote: the Greeks considered that the Planets gave form and filtered
>the expression of the SIGNS and not the other way around; in other
>words, it's not that our experience of Venus is different when it's in
>Libra, it's that our experience of LIBRA is changed and given form by
>Venus when Venus is in Libra.
><snip>
>Kevin
This is all news to me. But it makes a great deal of sense, that the
"energies" for want of a better word are "coming from" the most
distant areas of the universe, or the very depths of the human psyche
i.e. the signs or areas of the zodiac, and then being filtered through
the planets, which are closer to surface consciousness.
I had been thinking that the planets were the originators or
generators of the archetypal psychic energies, and that the signs were
the "clothing" or coloured lenses around the planets. I use this
concept of enegy coming from the planets particularly in synastry, to
describe how one pesons planets "exert an influence" in the other
persons houses or to their planets by cross aspect. Now it becomes
apparent that it is not necessary for a planet to be involved, as some
other point, ( perhaps a midpoint or something ? ) could act as the
lens or receiver for the background energies from the signs. In other
words, a midpoint or an angle, or even an arabic part, in A's chart
could be felt or sensed by B when he comes into contact with A.
I shall have to think about all this a lot more.
From Christine
--------------
Note Re cross-posts:I only read alt.astrology.
My server does not retrieve all the posts.
If I don't respond to your replies, please accept
my apologies,but I probably didn't see your post.
Please email me important replies as well as post.
Remove the letters REMOVE from email address when replying.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nefilim
maberry wrote:
Only one earth here too. Mars in Taurus. I've always been the
'rootless' type myself...I hate Los Angeles...but most cities I go to I
tolerate...and in some rare instances I actually like it!..the country
and animals I do adore as well. But I do think I'd take a nice busy city
over a boring ol' country house. Preferably, I'd love to live in the
city but have a vacation house in the country...but that would require
money...damn! Give me London..or Germany..those sound better. Now that I
think about it, I don't like America!
Nefilim
'Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you'
--author unknown
Edmond Wollmann
maberry wrote:
> Hello all -- trying to catch up on my reading after a few days in the
> real world...just read this discussion re the planets as focusing agents
> for energy which is coming from deeper out.
> How would this apply to the whole scheme of the chart then? Let's say
> we have someone with 5 planets in Scorpio and a number of "empty" signs
> (i.e., no planets in these signs).
Pluto would then be profoundly important in analysis, and the houses
that the planets ruled would be "meotianlly intensified." There would be
an extreme what I call "poker playing mentality" Scorpio is so fearful
of being taken advantage of and losing significance that they-in poker
terms-have to know all the players cards while they hide theirs just to
feel equal to the task.
> Would the person experience the
> empty sign energy in a purer form (without any planet to focus or
> interfere?) And since Scorpio would have five different "lenses" would
> this cause a lot of confusion in the Scorpio energy?
It is in implicate form and not manifested strongly if at all in this
life. Physicality is about manifesting specific lines of focus and
exploration, singularity and separation-it is the nature of the "beast"
of being physical.
> Could we view the chart as having the planets in areas that "need work"
> in this lifetime?
They are in the areas of CHOSEN FOCUS for this life-remember, there
really is no such a "thing" as time or space. These are effects of focus
and being physical. So the "you" you are that is everywhere all at once
is "already" developed-so to speak. So the "work" is really just a
process we go through in exploration of specificity, to become what we
already are. This "work" idea turns too easily to judgment, I would stay
away from this "needs to work on" stuff. It is simply the area of the
template (Scorpio) that the person has chosen to experience-perhaps
because of reflex action having dealt heavily say, with one's own worth
in another life and in this life the effect is the polarized version
(which is really just one "issue) Scorpio-or others values and worth.
All this would boil down to preoccupation with "resource-fullness" and
its implications in interaction with others. The e-motion or energy
motion of the intensity of belief. Thats realy what passion is. Also a
preoccupation with one's significance or emotional importance is at
issue.
> Thus giving an emphasis to those areas, allowing the
> empty signs to simply shine un-noticed, as background noise sort of?
They will be brought into the life through attraction of others who
"play this part".
> peace
> maberry
--
"Ideas not only alter the world constantly, they MAKE it constantly."
"The Nature of Personal Reality" page 93.
Crystal Pages
maberry <mab...@erols.com> wrote:
>Hello all -- trying to catch up on my reading after a few days in the
>real world...just read this discussion re the planets as focusing agents
>for energy which is coming from deeper out.
> How would this apply to the whole scheme of the chart then? Let's say
>we have someone with 5 planets in Scorpio and a number of "empty" signs
>(i.e., no planets in these signs). Would the person experience the
>empty sign energy in a purer form (without any planet to focus or
>interfere?) And since Scorpio would have five different "lenses" would
>this cause a lot of confusion in the Scorpio energy?
> Could we view the chart as having the planets in areas that "need work"
>in this lifetime? Thus giving an emphasis to those areas, allowing the
>empty signs to simply shine un-noticed, as background noise sort of?
>peace
>maberry
This becomes a bit easier in vedic astrology (Jyotish; although due to the
sidereal zodiac, the planetary distribution changes in the chart from what you
are used to, for instance some of the five in scorpio might move into libra!).
In that system, the planets have two major roles, one as the dynamic
executives that are incharge of certain areas in life (house rulership) which
changes from chart to chart as well as they have intrinsic, fixed executive
roles (moon for mother and motherhood, sun for father and government, mars for
brother, etc.). Planets also have roles as facilitators (benefics) and
inhibitors or restrainers (malefic).
The five planets in scorpio (or libra!) would therefore not all be lenses of
equivalent power and focused in the same area of human experience. Their
energies would be modulated not only by the sign and relationship with their
dispositors (lord of scorpio in this case), but also by many other factors,
including some related above.
Moreover, there are really no or very few empty (or unconnected) signs in a
vedic chart. Each planet tends to be related to its house through many
connectivities, other than occupancy. This takes place at the sign level,
divisional (varga; such as navamsha) level or at the level of asterisms
(nakshatras or lunar mansions). If you wish to explore this further, I would
be happy to utilize the example you mentioned about, or any other chart and
describe the connectivities. My newsserver is often overloaded or
malfunctional, so it might be a good idea to send me a copy of any response
(if you do respond!) by email. That will make sure that I will see it.
Thanks,
Ranjan
***************************************************************
o oo oooo oooooooo ooooooooooooooooo oooooooo oooo oo o
***************************************************************
http://www.cyberus.ca/~crystar/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/2456/
CRYSTAL PAGES is lovingly dedicated to serving JYOTISH
Vedic Astrology Readings, Lessons, Research & INFO-LETTER
P.O.B. 33035, 1974 Baseline Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K2C 3Y9.
***************************************************************
o oo oooo oooooooo ooooooooooooooooo oooooooo oooo oo o
***************************************************************
Edmond Wollmann
Sue Armitage wrote:
> In article <343D97...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
> >They are in the areas of CHOSEN FOCUS for this life-remember, there
> >really is no such a "thing" as time or space. These are effects of focus
> >and being physical. So the "you" you are that is everywhere all at once
> >is "already" developed-so to speak. So the "work" is really just a
> >process we go through in exploration of specificity, to become what we
> >already are. This "work" idea turns too easily to judgment, I would stay
> >away from this "needs to work on" stuff.
> Um.......then how do you create your own reality???????
Because when we create things on other levels they LOOK like "fate" or
aspects "causing" it etc. But we are still creating it on another level.
Also because the universe is infinite so are our creative abilities-but
there are also infinite time tracks and every time you make a creative
choice you shift time tracks.
> If we are
> already what we are and we don't need to work on the bits we don't
> like/understand how can we ever be what we would prefer to be?
We can never INCREASE our interconnectedness to the "All That Is"! you
are as connected as you will ever be-the only thing you can increase is
your AWARENESS of your interconnectedness. The more aware of it you
become the more choices you create that allow you if you wish to switch
time tracks and vibrational level.
> I think you may be going to say we already are what we prefer to be but
> just haven't discovered it yet -
It is an exploration-you are always creating your reality 100% even when
you use that 100% to create the illusion that you only have 10% and need
to "work" on the other 90%.
>but this still needs WORK and not being
> satisfied with where you are needs you to be able to judge your present
> situation as unfulfilling - otherwise there would be no motivation for
> change!
Why can't it be recognition of what we truly are inspired to do instead
of shoulds that we need or "must" work on that through awareness we
change preference???? Why does it have to be defined as "work"?
--
"Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose, whether
from the higher consciousness level or the physiological level."
Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
"Karma is simply an expression of momentum in a particular direction
with regard to what the higher self wishes to experience of itself. All
karma is self imposed. It is not a judgment. It is the recognition of
balance. It is the recognition of an idea that is being lived out, that
is being experienced, and the chosing of situations that will allow for
that experience to occur in physical reality." Bashar
--
Marsha
Can't work be fun or inspiring? I think of it more as focussed
energy--whether it's physical, mental or whatever. You can make almost
any work enjoyable if you want to.
It sounds to me like you're saying that if you don't feel like doing
something then you "should" forget about it.
And then what if you don't feel like it or don't continue to have the
inspiration to continue what you once felt inspired to do--even just
mundane everyday kinds of things.
You could then just flit around from inspiration to inspiration and what
would be accomplished? I'm assuming that this idea can be applied to
any plane--physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. And what results
can someone get by being scattered and not completing or following up on
things? Or do you think that's too Saturnian or judgmental? In order
to be more aware of the 90% by using the 10%, isn't it necessary to do
something about it and focus ("work")on it? Then if we prefer that or
whatever else, don't we have our own preferences ("shoulds") to focus
("work") on?
> --
> "Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose,
> whether from the higher consciousness level or the physiological
> level." Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
>
> "Karma is simply an expression of momentum in a particular direction
> with regard to what the higher self wishes to experience of itself.
> All karma is self imposed. It is not a judgment. It is the recognition
> of balance. It is the recognition of an idea that is being lived out,
> that is being experienced, and the chosing of situations that will
> allow for that experience to occur in physical reality." Bashar
> --
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> Astrological Consulting
Marsha
Sue Armitage
In article <343EC7...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>Sue Armitage wrote:
>
>> In article <343D97...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
>
>> >They are in the areas of CHOSEN FOCUS for this life-remember, there
>> >really is no such a "thing" as time or space. These are effects of focus
>> >and being physical. So the "you" you are that is everywhere all at once
>> >is "already" developed-so to speak. So the "work" is really just a
>> >process we go through in exploration of specificity, to become what we
>> >already are. This "work" idea turns too easily to judgment, I would stay
>> >away from this "needs to work on" stuff.
>
>> Um.......then how do you create your own reality???????
>
>Because when we create things on other levels they LOOK like "fate" or
>aspects "causing" it etc. But we are still creating it on another level.
Yes I agree totally with that. That wasn't really what I was
questioning. (What I meant is at the bottom)
>Also because the universe is infinite so are our creative abilities-but
>there are also infinite time tracks and every time you make a creative
>choice you shift time tracks.
You mean you are altering the future? So if we travelled back in time
and did something different the whole of today would be different?
>
>> If we are
>> already what we are and we don't need to work on the bits we don't
>> like/understand how can we ever be what we would prefer to be?
>
>We can never INCREASE our interconnectedness to the "All That Is"! you
>are as connected as you will ever be-the only thing you can increase is
>your AWARENESS of your interconnectedness.
Well OK - but that is probably not how it would seem to lot of people
who were not aware of their interconnectedness. If you are already
connected but you don't know it then you might as well not be connected
(to all intents and purposes!) I'm sure you can list a number of human
beings whose vibrational level equals that of an amoeba :)) (please
remember Edness=Cutness and refrain from doing this.........) :))
> The more aware of it you
>become the more choices you create that allow you if you wish to switch
>time tracks and vibrational level.
Vibrational level I understand perfectly. I have yet to experience
switching time tracks - but the possibility is intriguing.......
>
>> I think you may be going to say we already are what we prefer to be but
>> just haven't discovered it yet -
>
>It is an exploration-you are always creating your reality 100% even when
>you use that 100% to create the illusion that you only have 10% and need
>to "work" on the other 90%.
I really, really believe this and sometimes ALMOST manage it. But there
are practical problems. What we are talking about here could also be
called individuation....yes? What occurs to me is that if EVERYONE was
fulfilling their entire potential and creating their reality 100% who
the hell would clean the toilets and do the donkey work? Amoebae?:)
>
>>but this still needs WORK and not being
>> satisfied with where you are needs you to be able to judge your present
>> situation as unfulfilling - otherwise there would be no motivation for
>> change!
>
>Why can't it be recognition of what we truly are inspired to do instead
>of shoulds that we need or "must" work on that through awareness we
>change preference???? Why does it have to be defined as "work"?
Oh, I see :) Work is something unpleasant:) Well that just backs up my
point, above then, doesn't it? ;-)
I am teasing you. For me this 'work' is an absolute pleasure (although
I will admit that the Virgo bit of me occasionally considers it an
indulgence :)
My little nagging worry (besides Mercury and Venus!) is that when you
are talking about creating your own reality, you never say that you have
to KNOW the reality you are already living before you can create another
(better) one. This seems to be to be extremely important - because if
you do not understand the point you are starting from and if you have
not looked at it and decided that it is not what you prefer, then
anything you create will be a fantasy rather than a reality. You really
need to KNOW yourself and understand what is hampering your development
before you can move forward. I have asked you this before and never
really had a satisfactory reply. Please tell me whether or not you
agree with this.
The reason I am anxious about this is I see, in my work, just how hard
it is for some people to acknowledge that they have potential to create
anything at all - and even when they can see that what they are living
is due for change it is incredibly hard WORK for them. For you to see
self development/reality creation as an inspiration you have to be half
way there in the first place!
Sue
'You might as well face it you're addicted to love' Tina Turner :))
Edmond Wollmann
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------337F42B47F7E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sue Armitage wrote:
> In article <343EC7...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
> >Sue Armitage wrote:
> >> In article <343D97...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> >> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
> >> >They are in the areas of CHOSEN FOCUS for this life-remember, there
> >> >really is no such a "thing" as time or space. These are effects of focus
> >> >and being physical. So the "you" you are that is everywhere all at once
> >> >is "already" developed-so to speak. So the "work" is really just a
> >> >process we go through in exploration of specificity, to become what we
> >> >already are. This "work" idea turns too easily to judgment, I would stay
> >> >away from this "needs to work on" stuff.
> >> Um.......then how do you create your own reality???????
> >Because when we create things on other levels they LOOK like "fate" or
> >aspects "causing" it etc. But we are still creating it on another level.
> Yes I agree totally with that. That wasn't really what I was
> questioning. (What I meant is at the bottom)
Well I had to line this up, because if the time tracks are "already
there" then we can only align with them by changing beliefs etc. which
allow us to change frequency, then time tracks, I am going to include a
quick drawing at the bottom (attached as a gif).
> >Also because the universe is infinite so are our creative abilities-but
> >there are also infinite time tracks and every time you make a creative
> >choice you shift time tracks.
> You mean you are altering the future?
There is no THE future, there are infinite time tracks and each has an
equal chance of being "aligned with"-when you do you bring forth with
you the memories of the "past" that was a similar theme in all time
tracks that only vary as you move from one "end" of the spectrum to the
other-it is very hard to explain an infitite subject on limited paper
etc. Please see the drawing-to the right is infinite parallel realities,
on the left time as it "moves" forward (up) in the center 6 parallel
realities, if you start to move up A3 and make changes in awareness at a
certain point you may move over to time track A1 and not even know it.
Now the future on time track A1 is the most likely future whereas while
you were on A3 THAT future was the most likely probability based on your
self definition at that time.
> So if we travelled back in time
> and did something different the whole of today would be different?
We may align with a different time track-yes. Do you understand parallel
realities?
> >> If we are
> >> already what we are and we don't need to work on the bits we don't
> >> like/understand how can we ever be what we would prefer to be?
> >We can never INCREASE our interconnectedness to the "All That Is"! you
> >are as connected as you will ever be-the only thing you can increase is
> >your AWARENESS of your interconnectedness.
> Well OK - but that is probably not how it would seem to lot of people
> who were not aware of their interconnectedness.
Irrelevent.
> If you are already
> connected but you don't know it then you might as well not be connected
> (to all intents and purposes!)
Well just like creating your reality-whether you are aware of it is not
a determinant of whether you are or not-it is simply is an unconscious
act. We have become so accustomed to thinking the conscious mind is "in
control" that we assume the universe revolves around conscious
manipulations-but it doesn't.
"In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
Lincoln Barnett
> I'm sure you can list a number of human
> beings whose vibrational level equals that of an amoeba :))
Yes, but that again is irrelevent.
> (please
> remember Edness=Cutness and refrain from doing this.........) :))
Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
> > The more aware of it you
> >become the more choices you create that allow you if you wish to switch
> >time tracks and vibrational level.
> Vibrational level I understand perfectly. I have yet to experience
> switching time tracks - but the possibility is intriguing.......
Well you do it all the time every time you change your mind:-)
> >> I think you may be going to say we already are what we prefer to be but
> >> just haven't discovered it yet -
> >It is an exploration-you are always creating your reality 100% even when
> >you use that 100% to create the illusion that you only have 10% and need
> >to "work" on the other 90%.
> I really, really believe this and sometimes ALMOST manage it. But there
> are practical problems. What we are talking about here could also be
> called individuation....yes?
Yes and individuation could be likened to increased awareness, that
allows recognition of interconnectedness and rapid time track
accelarations.
> What occurs to me is that if EVERYONE was
> fulfilling their entire potential and creating their reality 100% who
> the hell would clean the toilets and do the donkey work? Amoebae?:)
You are confused, they ARE creating their reality 100%, they are just
not aware of all of the portions of the consciousness and beliefs that
are creating the things they don't prefer. When you create a negative
reinforcing reality, you get perfectly conforming negative
synchronicity. It is not WHETHER you are creating your reality 100%, it
is about becoming aware of unconscious levels of belief that you believe
are the most LIKELY ones to manifest because you are taught to believe
they are true-and REDEFINING THEM to what you DO prefer so that the 100%
creation is of what you prefer rather than what you don't -and now THAT
reality is the most likely to manifest because you now believe THAT one
to be "true". Thats what the tool of astrology is for.
> >>but this still needs WORK and not being
> >> satisfied with where you are needs you to be able to judge your present
> >> situation as unfulfilling - otherwise there would be no motivation for
> >> change!
> >Why can't it be recognition of what we truly are inspired to do instead
> >of shoulds that we need or "must" work on that through awareness we
> >change preference???? Why does it have to be defined as "work"?
> Oh, I see :) Work is something unpleasant:) Well that just backs up my
> point, above then, doesn't it? ;-)
No, it backs up clarity of what you BELIEVE to be the most LIKELY thing
to manifest because you believe it to be "true." So as always it tells
us of what you believe reality to consist of not reality-because there
is no one truth except that THE truth is the composition of all truths.
> I am teasing you. For me this 'work' is an absolute pleasure (although
> I will admit that the Virgo bit of me occasionally considers it an
> indulgence :)
It is what inspires you, so you act on it. Which is how the "All That
Is" intended-since this exploring is ultimately for it anyway.
> My little nagging worry (besides Mercury and Venus!) is that when you
> are talking about creating your own reality, you never say that you have
> to KNOW the reality you are already living before you can create another
> (better) one.
I addressed this above.
Better is a subjective value judgment-you mean prefer. Yes, by
understanding one's psyche is the as[pect you are speaking of-and yes I
do speak of it-but you all always forget it-I always say that you must
understand your beliefs that are unconscious so that you can own
them-the way to own them is to acknowledge your physical experiences
(and understand you chart-overcompensations etc. psychologically) as
being the product of them, once you own them you can redefine them-but
yes you must own them first. But you are free to change your reality at
any given moment and are not "stuck" on any momentum or belief. They are
all redefinable.
> This seems to be to be extremely important - because if
> you do not understand the point you are starting from and if you have
> not looked at it and decided that it is not what you prefer, then
> anything you create will be a fantasy rather than a reality. You really
> need to KNOW yourself and understand what is hampering your development
> before you can move forward. I have asked you this before and never
> really had a satisfactory reply. Please tell me whether or not you
> agree with this.
I have replied but you never pay any attention to it. The way to
discover it is to follow what it inspires you to do, because then
whatever you need to learn will come automatically with that action and
you will discover what you need to discover. You must be willing to know
yourself-this I have said over and over too. What is always hampering
development is resistance to ones own growth and beliefs in
separation-thats it. Choice.
> The reason I am anxious about this is I see, in my work, just how hard
> it is for some people to acknowledge that they have potential to create
> anything at all - and even when they can see that what they are living
> is due for change it is incredibly hard WORK for them. For you to see
> self development/reality creation as an inspiration you have to be half
> way there in the first place!
But to SEE anything you MUST BELIVE IT FIRST yes-you are correct-that is
why I focus on the belief-because action follows belief.
People learn by example and by acting-not by telling, when the student
is ready the teacher appears. There doesn't need to be any other special
circumstances other than the willingness to know oneself and and to
remain open.
> 'You might as well face it you're addicted to love' Tina Turner :))
I don't think that was Tina, I think it was Palmer? Not sure.
--
"Because beliefs form reality-the structure of experience-any change in
beliefs altering that structure initiates change to some extent, of
course. The status quo which served a certain purpose is gone, new
elements are introduced, another creative process begins. Because your
private beliefs are shared with others, because there IS interaction,
then any determined change of direction on your part is felt by others,
and they will react in their own fashion." Jane Roberts as "Seth" The
Nature of Personal Reality, page 90, 1974.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
--------------337F42B47F7E
Content-Type: image/gif; name="TMTRK.GIF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="TMTRK.GIF"
<encoded_portion_removed>
5m3u5m8O53Eu53NO53Vu53eO53mu53t+yQUAADs=
--------------337F42B47F7E--
Roger L. Satterlee
> Sue Armitage wrote:
Um.......then how do you create your own reality???????
Dear Sue,
Being that this question of yours is posted to a bulletin board forum, I
hope you won't mind my interjecting some common sense logic here concerning Ed's
elaborate analogy. In general Ed is the type of person who apparently needs to
make his *it-is-as-if* metaphors more real than imaginary. Like imaginary numbers,
say the square root of minus 2, we can employ concepts which have no physical
reality to help us describe the relationship between two or more separate ideas.
If one will treat Ed's descriptions of how we change our "reality" as if
one were merely selecting of our perspective, then the mystifying mumbo jumbo of
changing one's reality is more akin to our rearranging an equation in algebra. The
relationship between ideas (expressions) is held constant while our focus could be
said to highlight idea A, as when A=B+C; or B, as when B=A-C, and so forth.
If all Ed's statements are translated from the belief reliant suppositions
of Ed's wonderful allegories, then the distance we feel to these ideas is greatly
reduced. Try to substitute *It-is-as-if* whenever Ed say's *It IS* and the
personal bias Ed has for shaping the universe in his own image dissolves in
typical Neptune fashion...and this dissolving of barriers constructed by Ed--
this removing of those things which he does to isolate himself in search of a
unique form, is a good thing.
When we remember something like a decisive period in our lives
*It-is-as-if* we could move to another time track. When we observe how persistent
we have been in our mostly unconscious choices which limit or broaden our
potential for social interactions, for instance, then we say *It-is-as-if* we had
always been following a path which we chose prior to our becoming conscious of our
actual behaviour.
To say *It-is-as-if* I have lived before, as a diffenent person, is a
useful metaphor--good poetry--inspired and inspiring ART; but such personal
flights of fantasy, when taken as some necessary prerequisite condition, is of
very little use to one as a *fact* of one's *reality*....IT IS, however, OK if we
don't know a great many things...accepting that we cannot know "reality" or create
one except by analogy and metaphor seems a very growth oriented act of unqualified
faith.
IT IS true that we seem entirely dependent on our imagination, and
everything which Ed insists is as "true" as the existence of the square root of a
negative number...(And here I like to point out that another July 26 Leo such as
myself came to this same conclusion--used the same words, but I am not GB
Shaw...*It is as if* there are some natural inclinations to astrology's
personality types--but nature seems to express it self in the form of individuals
who are at least as different as they are alike--a balanced random distribution of
human properies often exhibiting the delightful patterns we find in any organized
chaos.
Rog
--
peda...@geocities.com
11:53PM EDT 26Jul50 76W48 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Lady Nidiffer
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
<344072...@aznet.net>...
> Well I had to line this up, because if the time tracks are "already
> there" then we can only align with them by changing beliefs etc. which
> allow us to change frequency, then time tracks, I am going to include a
> quick drawing at the bottom (attached as a gif).
>
Oh, dear Ed, you shouldn't have left a sample of your handwriting.
I wonder what the handwriting experts are going to do with that.
--
Lady Nidiffer (former Scorpio, looking for a new astro sign)
"Got a problem with it TV? Killfile me bitch." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
Edmond Wollmann
Lady Nidiffer wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
> <344072...@aznet.net>...
> > there" then we can only align with them by changing beliefs etc. which
> > allow us to change frequency, then time tracks, I am going to include a
> > quick drawing at the bottom (attached as a gif).
> I wonder what the handwriting experts are going to do with that.
I am discussing doing a paper with a colleague right now on handwriting
analysis and have been studying it for 10 years. Anything revealing will
only confirm that I am as I present myself to be. (now here comes the
smart remarks about what you think I am).
Oh well. Its good to see you are advertising me for me in your sig. If I
was embarrassed by what I say I don't say it the first time much as you
all think it is temperament it is deemed appropriate in my mind before I
type it so you are not hurting me by repeating it. People are going to
think what they want to think. They can look at the diversity of my
posts andf judge for themselves. I think it is more revealing that I
have SO MANY opponents. When all I have done is try to make sense out of
complicated issues all my life.
--
"Well you'll believe what you wanna believe-you see you don't have to
live like a refugee....It's just one of those things you got to feel to
be truuuueeeee." Tom Petty
Edmond Wollmann
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> To say *It-is-as-if*
Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant) seeks to see all
sides of an argument because settling on one may threaten social
acceptance and a decisive locus of control wherein action can be taken
(Mars) toward preference with confidence regaredless of the "threat" of
the loss of favorable reflective support (Libra). This was evidenced by
your lack of ethics in presenting my data against requests not to do so
in order to get the good opinion of others in the hope of championing
and whipping up more opposition to me-but we create our reality by what
we believe and if we enter into affairs with a lack of integrity and
negativity this will be what we extract-hence it backfired on you and
YOU were seen in a bad light not me.
>I have lived before, as a diffenent person, is a
> useful metaphor--good poetry--inspired and inspiring ART; but such personal
> flights of fantasy, when taken as some necessary prerequisite condition, is of
> very little use to one as a *fact* of one's *reality*.
There is no one truth, you are simply looking for the "correct" version
of reality because you fear the loss of control reflected in the beliefs
regarding functional adequacuy of Saturn in Virgo. There is no "fact"
only agreed upon parameters that reflect the idea we create known as
"physical reality" it is ONE way of experiencing the unbroken wholeness
of "All That Is" AS a separated and focused BROKEN fragmentation. But an
illusion none-the-less.
The discoveries and work of the following persons are just a FEW of the
analytically accurate support of the hypothesis I present;
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape, and
extension too are mere apparent qualities."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the startling
conclusion that since every object is simply the sum of its qualities,
and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe
of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a
construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols
shaped by the senses of man."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those
bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any
substance
without the mind....So long as they are not actually percieved by me, or
do not exist in my mind, or that of any other created spirit, they must
either have no existance at all, or else subsist in the mind of some
eternal spirit." Berkeley
"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
so
an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark it."
Lincoln Barnett
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
laid
down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one encounters
in
later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident" concepts."
Albert Einstein
"In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
Lincoln Barnett
"The physicist has no need of the flow of time or the now in the world
of
physics. Indeed the theory of relativity rules out a universal present
for all observers. If there is any meaning at all to these concepts (and
many philosophers, such as McTaggart, deny that there is) then it would
seem to belong to psychology rather than physics." Paul Davies on Time
"...memory does not so much PRODUCE as DISCOVER personal identity, by
shewing us the relation of cause and effect among our different
perceptions." Davide Hume on personal identity
"In short, the world is not a collection of separate but coupled THINGS;
rather it is a network of relations." David Bohm
"The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world
and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate." Werner
Heisenberg
>..IT IS, however, OK if we
> don't know a great many things.
This is a subjective value defense against something you imply I meant
which I never had-i.e., that NOT knowing is NOT ok-never did I say that,
nor Roger is knowing "bad."
>..accepting that we cannot know "reality" or create
> one except by analogy and metaphor seems a very growth oriented act of unqualified
> faith.
Denying that we CAN know seems like the powerless aquiesence to and
resignation of ones will to "fate" of which there is no such animal.
> IT IS true that we seem entirely dependent on our imagination, and
> everything which Ed insists is as "true" as the existence of the square root of a
> negative number...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
>(And here I like to point out that another July 26 Leo such as
> myself came to this same conclusion--used the same words, but I am not GB
> Shaw...*It is as if* there are some natural inclinations to astrology's
> personality types--but nature seems to express it self in the form of individuals
> who are at least as different as they are alike--a balanced random distribution of
> human properies often exhibiting the delightful patterns we find in any organized
> chaos.
Rambling explanations to compensate for the fear of responsibility for
one's reality.
There is no one truth Roger-and thats ok, I speak of the one I believe
to be true, and there are no rules from on high to deny me that-let
alone you. If my posts serve you use them if they do not present your
own views on the nature of reality and functioning. I ask no one to
believe anything simply because I say it.
PS My Saturn is exactly square your Pluto=Saturn tests our ability to
consciously percieve what our beliefs about reality create (EW, 1990),
in this case my Saturn tests your belief in your ability and trust in
recognizing that you are the reality you believe you exist within and
your perspective altering (Pluto) capabilties to transform that locus of
control from apparent externals to internal empowerment.
Nothing is TOO simple to be true Roger, nor is your "fantasy" of the
"way things are" anymore valid than any other persons.
(Virgo/Picses=PERSPECTIVE)
One man's cieling is anothers floor.
--
"The senses turn outward; Man therefore looks towards what is outside,
and sees not the inward being. Rare is the wise man who shuts his eyes
to outward things and so beholds the glory of the Atman within." The
Upanishads
Marsha
Lady Nidiffer wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
> <344072...@aznet.net>...
>
> > there" then we can only align with them by changing beliefs etc.
> > which allow us to change frequency, then time tracks, I am going to
> > include a quick drawing at the bottom (attached as a gif).
> >
>
> I wonder what the handwriting experts are going to do with that.
Not much :)
1. Not enough writing for a good sample
2. It's printed, not written (unless the person prints always)
3. You need an *original* copy to do a scientific analysis. Copies
aren't good, and scanned then printed copies would be worse.
4. It may be possible to identify whether or not another sample of the
same thing was done by the same person--but that's about it.
>
> --
> Lady Nidiffer (former Scorpio, looking for a new astro sign)
> "Got a problem with it TV? Killfile me bitch." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
Marsha
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
>
> First let me say to mayberry; Yes the chart can allow us to understand
> our beliefs through those indicators so we can more fully be aware of
> our beliefs, so that we can redefine ourselves if we prefer to a more
> expanded state. I realize this is the bulk of what you meant by "work"
> on I just wanted to point out how easily astrologers OR psychologists
> and counselors can turn this into judgment of what the client "should"
> do-the counselor can only reccommend whatever and the client must come
> to these awakenings and take action based on their own conviction and
> awareness. Whether we as counselors or astrologers or whatever are
> pretty convinced that IS what is needed, Ok?:-)
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > Sue Armitage wrote:
>
> > > > In article <343D97...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> > > > <woll...@aznet.net> writes
>
> > > > >They are in the areas of CHOSEN FOCUS for this life-remember, there
> > > > >really is no such a "thing" as time or space. These are effects of
> > > > >focus and being physical. So the "you" you are that is everywhere
> > > > >all at once is "already" developed-so to speak. So the "work" is
> > > > >really just a process we go through in exploration of specificity,
> > > > >to become what we already are. This "work" idea turns too easily to
> > > > >judgment, I would stay away from this "needs to work on" stuff.
>
>
> > > aspects "causing" it etc. But we are still creating it on another
> > > abilities-but there are also infinite time tracks and every time you
> > > make a creative choice you shift time tracks.
>
> > > > already what we are and we don't need to work on the bits we don't
> > > > like/understand how can we ever be what we would prefer to be?
>
> > > We can never INCREASE our interconnectedness to the "All That Is"! you
> > > are as connected as you will ever be-the only thing you can increase
> > > become the more choices you create that allow you if you wish to
> > > switch time tracks and vibrational level.
>
> > > > but just haven't discovered it yet -
>
> > > It is an exploration-you are always creating your reality 100% even
> > > when you use that 100% to create the illusion that you only have 10%
> > > and need to "work" on the other 90%.
>
> > > > satisfied with where you are needs you to be able to judge your
> > > > present situation as unfulfilling - otherwise there would be no
> > > > motivation for change!
>
> > > Why can't it be recognition of what we truly are inspired to do
> > > instead of shoulds that we need or "must" work on that through
> > > awareness we change preference???? Why does it have to be defined as
> > > "work"?
>
>
> thing (belief) many have difficulty changing is that IT CAN BE JUST
> THAT SIMPLE. Because we are taught right away "you'll never get
> anywhere that way" WHAT WAY!!!??? If no one allows it how do we know?
By doing it anyway, or making our own decisions.
> "Music is your own experience, your thoughts, your wisdom. If you
> don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker
>
> > I think of it more as focussed
> > energy--whether it's physical, mental or whatever.
>
> Yes, being physical is just the "fun" thing we chose to do by
> incarnating from CHOICE.
>
> > You can make almost
> > any work enjoyable if you want to.
>
> You can ALLOW anything, you can "make" nothing do anything.
"make" as in "create" or creating enjoyment or enthusiasm.
> > It sounds to me like you're saying that if you don't feel like doing
> > something then you "should" forget about it.
>
> A feeling is a reaction to a belief-so if you don't "feel" like doing
> something then you must have a "belief" about it that allows you to
> "feel" that way. This can be instructive as to WHY you may have that
> belief that allows you to "feel" that way. There are no shoulds. But
> if you don't feel like doing something I would reccommend that you
> examine the reasons behind why you might have the beliefs about that
> thing to allow you to understand yourself better and determine if
> perhaps you "feel" that way out of anxiety (the negative judging of
> excitment and tansion-that the "thing" is outside of you and going to
> "solve" your problems for you) or out of excitement and bliss (that it
> is simply reflective of the vibration you are and prefer to be from
> INSIDE you and you recognize it by the excitement you feel). Many
> times we may resist doing something because we have anxiety about
> it-meaning that we don't feel like it because we may have fears about
> what that may entail.
Yes. But also we may not have an interest or feel "excited" about
doing some daily thing that we did previously. It may be a necessity of
day-to-day living *as we know it*. OK. But then looking further, if we
don't do it then that could change our lives and we may create anxiety
or tension because we fear that change?
> This is very difficult to explain over usenet
> posts with one liners. But anything you feel must be there FOR A
> REASON your reason-there is something there for you to learn from.
OK.
> > And then what if you don't feel like it or don't continue to have
> > the inspiration to continue what you once felt inspired to do--even
> > just mundane everyday kinds of things.
>
> Then don't do them-perhaps there is something within that
> "sidetracking" that then allows you to learn something that REINSPIRES
> YOU!!!! It is always how you USE whatever DOES happen! Your attitude.
> EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IS A PART OF THE PATH YOU CHOSE TO BE-NOT AN
> INTERRUPTION TO IT-YOU ARE NOT ON A PATH YOU ARE A PATH-YOU CANNOT BE > OFF YOURSELF.
That makes sense again :) Then there is no guilt or shoulds.
> > You could then just flit around from inspiration to inspiration and
> > what would be accomplished?
>
> BUT WHY WOULD YOU CREATE AN ESCAPE LIKE THIS FROM FULFILLMENT????
Indecision? Or ignoring what you truly want to do.
> Then
> this would be a belief that would need inspecting, because if you keep
> sidetracking and never get any fulfillment (notice I said
> fulfillment-NOT what other persons would judge as "success") then
> there must be a reason for that yes?
>
> > I'm assuming that this idea can be applied to
> > any plane--physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. And what
> > results can someone get by being scattered and not completing or
> > following up on things?
>
> Who said anything about that?
I did? :)
> You are making leaps now and jumping to
> judgmental conclusions. If the above happened like I said......when I
> feel this way I take the supposed sidetracking and allow it to be
> "ok"-at least enough to see what is there, and without fail I discover
> something that allows me FULLER forward tracking!!! Why??? Because I
> TRUST THAT IT WILL AND IS THERE FOR A REASON. Why do you think planets
> go RX??? Becaue in the Earth experience the consious mind cannot
> incorporate all IT THINKS IT CAN (the ego)-it does not know
> everything-it is simply an EFFECT of being so highly focused. Nor is
> it the whole you you have played the game of believing it is- hence
> REassessments MUST occur (notice this is only an APPARENT MOTION FROM
> THE EARTH'S VIEW).
OK.
>
> > Or do you think that's too Saturnian or judgmental? In order
> > to be more aware of the 90% by using the 10%, isn't it necessary to
> > do something about it and focus ("work")on it?
>
> Action is the conviction of belief-act on what it inspires you to do
> at any given moment and everything EFFORTLESSLY falls into place-it is
> judgment that things CAN'T or don't fit that CAUSES the
> difficulty-see? BECAUSE THEY MUST FIT! Simply because the narrow
> conscious focus of our minds can't see HOW they fit always-does not
> mean they DON'T. They fit into the life you have YET to live-these are
> attitudes that for thousands of years we have defined as "the way it
> is" but it AINT.
>
> "Let the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur
> of the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness
> of the mind. "
> -SIR FRANCIS BACON
>
> > Then if we prefer that or
> > whatever else, don't we have our own preferences ("shoulds") to
> > focus ("work") on?
>
> To simply act on-and if you can't see what the "overall" excitment is
> the best way to align yourself is by acting in the moment ON WHAT YOU
> PREFER FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT-see?
I do agree with that. I probably have some beliefs though that I'm not
consciously aware of that conflict.
> Life is not "hard" a "battle" "no
> pain no gain" IT IS WHATEVER YOU DEFINE IT TO BE-but it does not HAVE
> to be anything. Does this help?
Yes, thankyou.
> And please I am not "yelling" K??:-)
I know--you're just emphasizing :)
> --
> "Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose,
> whether from the higher consciousness level or the physiological
> level." Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
>
> "Karma is simply an expression of momentum in a particular direction
> with regard to what the higher self wishes to experience of itself.
> All karma is self imposed. It is not a judgment. It is the recognition
> of balance. It is the recognition of an idea that is being lived out,
> that is being experienced, and the chosing of situations that will
> allow for that experience to occur in physical reality." Bashar
> --
> "We know the whole idea of how we feel in that sense, we trust > ourselves
> as aspects of the infinite-therefore we interact spontaneously-without
> necessarily having to "plan" anything, without having to "make sure"
> everything will go "as planned," we do not need the "insurance" of
> something to "fall back" on should what we go for "fail." All of these
> ideas are doubts and mistrusts of the true unconditionalness of our
> love." Bashar, "Southern Exposure"
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> Astrological Consulting
Marsha
Roger L. Satterlee
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
> > To say *It-is-as-if*
>
> Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant) seeks to see all
> sides of an argument because settling on one may threaten social
> acceptance and a decisive locus of control wherein action can be taken
> (Mars) toward preference with confidence regaredless of the "threat" of
> the loss of favorable reflective support (Libra). This was evidenced by
I am here repeating Joseph Campbell thoughts on metaphor--a man who has
Mars in Aries like you...:) (I baited you again, Ed...:)
Edmond Wollmann
Marsha wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > "work"?
> > > Can't work be fun or inspiring?
> > Mine is!! All of my work(s). Or I don't do them-its that simple. One
> > thing (belief) many have difficulty changing is that IT CAN BE JUST
> > THAT SIMPLE. Because we are taught right away "you'll never get
> > anywhere that way" WHAT WAY!!!??? If no one allows it how do we know?
> By doing it anyway, or making our own decisions.
Right by acting on it.
> > > You can make almost
> > > any work enjoyable if you want to.
> > You can ALLOW anything, you can "make" nothing do anything.
> "make" as in "create" or creating enjoyment or enthusiasm.
Well the point I was making with that verbiage is that life works when
you let it and our natural state is effortless-so by relaxing judgments
etc. we allow things to happen rather than having to make them happen.
> > > It sounds to me like you're saying that if you don't feel like doing
> > > something then you "should" forget about it.
> > A feeling is a reaction to a belief-so if you don't "feel" like doing
> > something then you must have a "belief" about it that allows you to
> > "feel" that way. This can be instructive as to WHY you may have that
> > belief that allows you to "feel" that way. There are no shoulds. But
> > if you don't feel like doing something I would reccommend that you
> > examine the reasons behind why you might have the beliefs about that
> > thing to allow you to understand yourself better and determine if
> > perhaps you "feel" that way out of anxiety (the negative judging of
> > excitment and tansion-that the "thing" is outside of you and going to
> > "solve" your problems for you) or out of excitement and bliss (that it
> > is simply reflective of the vibration you are and prefer to be from
> > INSIDE you and you recognize it by the excitement you feel). Many
> > times we may resist doing something because we have anxiety about
> > it-meaning that we don't feel like it because we may have fears about
> > what that may entail.
> Yes. But also we may not have an interest or feel "excited" about
> doing some daily thing that we did previously. It may be a necessity of
> day-to-day living *as we know it*.
Well, I have always done all the housecleaning etc. even when I was
married and I enjoy it, it may not be a big overwhelming excitement I
will ever do-but I enjoy keeping things nice, so it never phases me that
I don't want to do it, and if I don't feel like doing it I don't.
Because I know I will later and thats ok. I wash all the clothes and
stuff even though my son is 17 now, but it really doesn't bother me
ever. It like everything else just "is".
> OK. But then looking further, if we
> don't do it then that could change our lives and we may create anxiety
> or tension because we fear that change?
We may create anxiety because we are judging that we SHOULD do it even
when we don't feel like it. There may be a reason for not feeling like
it, like just to sit and reflect maybe and something comes to you that
changes things dramatically even though it may not seem like it at the
time.
> > This is very difficult to explain over usenet
> > posts with one liners. But anything you feel must be there FOR A
> > REASON your reason-there is something there for you to learn from.
> OK.
> > > And then what if you don't feel like it or don't continue to have
> > > the inspiration to continue what you once felt inspired to do--even
> > > just mundane everyday kinds of things.
> > Then don't do them-perhaps there is something within that
> > "sidetracking" that then allows you to learn something that REINSPIRES
> > YOU!!!! It is always how you USE whatever DOES happen! Your attitude.
> > EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IS A PART OF THE PATH YOU CHOSE TO BE-NOT AN
> > INTERRUPTION TO IT-YOU ARE NOT ON A PATH YOU ARE A PATH-YOU CANNOT BE > OFF YOURSELF.
> That makes sense again :) Then there is no guilt or shoulds.
> > > You could then just flit around from inspiration to inspiration and
> > > what would be accomplished?
> > BUT WHY WOULD YOU CREATE AN ESCAPE LIKE THIS FROM FULFILLMENT????
> Indecision? Or ignoring what you truly want to do.
But you would do that only if you believed you could not fulfill it or
that you didn't deserve it or some such thing true?
Snip...
> > > I'm assuming that this idea can be applied to
> > > any plane--physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. And what
> > > results can someone get by being scattered and not completing or
> > > following up on things?
> > Who said anything about that?
> I did? :)
You fear this will happen?
> > To simply act on-and if you can't see what the "overall" excitment is
> > the best way to align yourself is by acting in the moment ON WHAT YOU
> > PREFER FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT-see?
> I do agree with that. I probably have some beliefs though that I'm not
> consciously aware of that conflict.
Well Saturn in 5 may be "shoulds" before extending for some reason. Most
likely the idea that you may "risk" losing something if you do.
> > Life is not "hard" a "battle" "no
> > pain no gain" IT IS WHATEVER YOU DEFINE IT TO BE-but it does not HAVE
> > to be anything. Does this help?
> Yes, thankyou.
> > And please I am not "yelling" K??:-)
> I know--you're just emphasizing :)
Thanks Marsha, I don't know if I am helping but this stuff all fits
together very well. It is just very hard to explain all of the aspects
of it-this comes over time.
--
"And if I stand or I fall, its all or nothing at all, darlin I don't
know why I go to extremes." Billy Joel
Edmond Wollmann
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> > > To say *It-is-as-if*
> > Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant) seeks to see all
> > sides of an argument because settling on one may threaten social
> > acceptance and a decisive locus of control wherein action can be taken
> > (Mars) toward preference with confidence regaredless of the "threat" of
> > the loss of favorable reflective support (Libra). This was evidenced by
> > your lack of ethics (.......blah blah)
> I am here repeating Joseph Campbell thoughts on metaphor--a man who has
> Mars in Aries like you...:) (I baited you again, Ed...:)
I have Mars in Gemini.
--
"The purpose of living is to discover the purpose of living." Plato
Satori
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344107...@aznet.net>...
>Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
>> To say *It-is-as-if*
>
>Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
[snip cuz I just wanted to]
Tell me, Ed, I keep seeing this Mars in Libra and it appears from the feel
of the writings I've seen on it here, that it's not a good thing. Is this
true???
I have a friend who just got his chart and he has Libra in Mars, not the
ascendant either but in the 7th house. Not sure of which type of chart he
got done, just know that he was awfully excited he had it done.
Thanks in advance for any info.
Satori!
"Psycho-babble oh psycho-babble" <alan parsons project>
Roger L. Satterlee
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
>
> > > Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
> > > > To say *It-is-as-if*
>
> > > Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant) seeks to see all
> > > sides of an argument because settling on one may threaten social
> > > acceptance and a decisive locus of control wherein action can be taken
> > > (Mars) toward preference with confidence regaredless of the "threat" of
> > > the loss of favorable reflective support (Libra). This was evidenced by
>
> > I am here repeating Joseph Campbell thoughts on metaphor--a man who has
> > Mars in Aries like you...:) (I baited you again, Ed...:)
>
> I have Mars in Gemini.
You are of course correct, and your disease has had its deleterious effect on my
being...now don't let that change your hat size by too great a margin...:)
The fact remains that the *identity* of an idea, such as a subjective metaphor vs
an objective fact, is a matter of the Aries function not Libra directly--if you wish to
judge the import of Mars in my chart in connection with the concept of *it-is-as-if* you
should see the Aries/identity and first house associations and not be blinded by your
infectious rage which only seeks an individual's motivation the way a vampire seeks blood.
Sue Armitage
In article <344072...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>
>Well I had to line this up, because if the time tracks are "already
>there" then we can only align with them by changing beliefs etc. which
>allow us to change frequency, then time tracks, I am going to include a
>quick drawing at the bottom (attached as a gif).
>
>> >Also because the universe is infinite so are our creative abilities-but
>> >there are also infinite time tracks and every time you make a creative
>> >choice you shift time tracks.
>
>> You mean you are altering the future?
>
>There is no THE future,
That is what I meant by 'altering' it!
> there are infinite time tracks and each has an
>equal chance of being "aligned with"-when you do you bring forth with
>you the memories of the "past" that was a similar theme in all time
>tracks that only vary as you move from one "end" of the spectrum to the
>other-it is very hard to explain an infitite subject on limited paper
>etc. Please see the drawing-to the right is infinite parallel realities,
>on the left time as it "moves" forward (up) in the center 6 parallel
>realities, if you start to move up A3 and make changes in awareness at a
>certain point you may move over to time track A1 and not even know it.
>Now the future on time track A1 is the most likely future whereas while
>you were on A3 THAT future was the most likely probability based on your
>self definition at that time.
>
>> So if we travelled back in time
>> and did something different the whole of today would be different?
>
>We may align with a different time track-yes. Do you understand parallel
>realities?
I know what I understand as parallel realities....... which may not be
the same thing....... What happens if you change to a different time
track and the people you live with stay on the same one?
I am just thinking of the bible code which can only be understood in
retrospect because we have free will and our decisions change what
happens - but then the upshot of this is we must only have a limited
amount of free will if this was encoded by some entity in advance - so
how can there be infinite time tracks? If you start thinking about it
this gets incredibly complicated.
>
>> >> If we are
>> >> already what we are and we don't need to work on the bits we don't
>> >> like/understand how can we ever be what we would prefer to be?
>
>> >We can never INCREASE our interconnectedness to the "All That Is"! you
>> >are as connected as you will ever be-the only thing you can increase is
>> >your AWARENESS of your interconnectedness.
>
>> Well OK - but that is probably not how it would seem to lot of people
>> who were not aware of their interconnectedness.
>
>Irrelevent.
Sometimes you really piss me off. Aren't you interested in PROMOTING
this awareness?? If people don't KNOW what they are capable of a lot of
them will remain unaware. You think this is OK because this is their
reality?? This is a complete paradox. You post here because you ARE
promoting interconnectedness and then you say it is irrelevant if I
think people should increase their knowledge and awareness but are going
to have difficulty because they don't understand the concept.
> We have become so accustomed to thinking the conscious mind is "in
>control" that we assume the universe revolves around conscious
>manipulations
Not where I am we don't!
>
>> (please
>> remember Edness=Cutness and refrain from doing this.........) :))
>
>Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
.....and you will be stuck with them forever. How come your preference
is to let these tedious lowlifes to inhabit your reality? They don't
exist in mine.
>
>> Vibrational level I understand perfectly. I have yet to experience
>> switching time tracks - but the possibility is intriguing.......
>
>Well you do it all the time every time you change your mind:-)
Not often then :)
>
>> What occurs to me is that if EVERYONE was
>> fulfilling their entire potential and creating their reality 100% who
>> the hell would clean the toilets and do the donkey work? Amoebae?:)
>
>You are confused, they ARE creating their reality 100%,
Ok - I used the 'wrong' expression. They have not ignited the desire to
individuate.
> they are just
>not aware of all of the portions of the consciousness and beliefs that
>are creating the things they don't prefer. When you create a negative
>reinforcing reality, you get perfectly conforming negative
>synchronicity. It is not WHETHER you are creating your reality 100%, it
>is about becoming aware of unconscious levels of belief that you believe
>are the most LIKELY ones to manifest because you are taught to believe
>they are true-and REDEFINING THEM to what you DO prefer so that the 100%
>creation is of what you prefer rather than what you don't -and now THAT
>reality is the most likely to manifest because you now believe THAT one
>to be "true". Thats what the tool of astrology is for.
'that's what the tool of astrology is for' is a very strong statement!
I sort of agree but there are things I want to argue about and there is
not enough space here! Here is just one:- You seem to be saying that
you can uncover a person's unconscious levels of belief from their
horoscope. Well yes I agree that you can but this is not always 100%
accurate and even if you THINK you are 100% accurate you have to get the
client to believe this - and should you really be getting the client to
believe what YOU believe when there is a possibility you could be wrong?
And if you say you are never wrong and I am only sometimes wrong because
I'm not using your method I will personally get on a plane to California
and strangle you! I am thinking here of twins - of which I have had two
sets recently and you could NOT have interpreted the same chart in the
same way for both of them because they are different! At least the
energy is the same but the expression differed.
>
>> My little nagging worry (besides Mercury and Venus!) is that when you
>> are talking about creating your own reality, you never say that you have
>> to KNOW the reality you are already living before you can create another
>> (better) one.
>
>I addressed this above.
>Better is a subjective value judgment-you mean prefer.
Nit picking!
> Yes, by
>understanding one's psyche is the as[pect you are speaking of-and yes I
>do speak of it-but you all always forget it-I always say that you must
>understand your beliefs that are unconscious so that you can own
>them-the way to own them is to acknowledge your physical experiences
>(and understand you chart-overcompensations etc. psychologically) as
>being the product of them, once you own them you can redefine them-but
>yes you must own them first.
I honestly don't believe you can do this just by having your horoscope
read! Understanding your unconscious beliefs is a painful and lengthy
experience for many people and redefining them is even harder.
> But you are free to change your reality at
>any given moment and are not "stuck" on any momentum or belief. They are
>all redefinable.
>
>> This seems to be to be extremely important - because if
>> you do not understand the point you are starting from and if you have
>> not looked at it and decided that it is not what you prefer, then
>> anything you create will be a fantasy rather than a reality. You really
>> need to KNOW yourself and understand what is hampering your development
>> before you can move forward. I have asked you this before and never
>> really had a satisfactory reply. Please tell me whether or not you
>> agree with this.
>
>I have replied but you never pay any attention to it.
:( Well I'm Mars mode at present so I'm and seeing your verbal
onslaught as a challenge. When I'm in Venus mode it seems like an
assault which is a little uncomfortable for me so on Venus days I don't
pay much attention:) BTW this is just an observation and I do not
require to be told that this is my problem and nothing to do with you:)
>
>> The reason I am anxious about this is I see, in my work, just how hard
>> it is for some people to acknowledge that they have potential to create
>> anything at all - and even when they can see that what they are living
>> is due for change it is incredibly hard WORK for them. For you to see
>> self development/reality creation as an inspiration you have to be half
>> way there in the first place!
>
>But to SEE anything you MUST BELIVE IT FIRST yes-you are correct-that is
>why I focus on the belief-because action follows belief.
>People learn by example and by acting-not by telling, when the student
>is ready the teacher appears. There doesn't need to be any other special
>circumstances other than the willingness to know oneself and and to
>remain open.
Trouble is I am constantly faced with people who desperately need to
grow but do not have the ability to 'know' themselves. Although I
suppose a small step is better than none. Sometimes it's frustrating.
>
>> 'You might as well face it you're addicted to love' Tina Turner :))
>
>I don't think that was Tina, I think it was Palmer? Not sure.
Geez......I think I am typing black words on a white background - what
do you think??????:) When I was bopping around my kitchen on Saturday
morning it was to Tina singing that. OK? It was only to make you laugh
anyway (sigh.........)
Sue
Edmond Wollmann
> >> So if we travelled back in time
> >> and did something different the whole of today would be different?
> >We may align with a different time track-yes. Do you understand parallel
> >realities?
> I know what I understand as parallel realities....... which may not be
> the same thing....... What happens if you change to a different time
> track and the people you live with stay on the same one?
Then you won't be living together anymore. Or the INFINITE versions that
exist will still have them in the new version that is included in yours.
This happens all the time-you mean there aren't any people in your life
who went on to something else and you know they are still alive but
haven't seen them anymore?
> I am just thinking of the bible code which can only be understood in
> retrospect because we have free will and our decisions change what
> happens
Assuming the Bible code is what it is cracked up to be.
>- but then the upshot of this is we must only have a limited
> amount of free will
We have limited will of the physical self based on the parameters or
themes created by free will choice of the higher self of the "Hallway"
of incarnational choice seen through the horoscope-but it was still
choice just on another level.
"Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose, whether
from the higher consciousness level or the physiological level."
Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
> if this was encoded by some entity in advance
No entity encodes anything in "advance" except you yourself of your own
choices and everything is actually "happening" now, so you are
"actually" choosing it now.
>- so
> how can there be infinite time tracks? If you start thinking about it
> this gets incredibly complicated.
There are infinite time tracks that radiate out infinitely-you are
making it complicated because you are assuming that time/space are part
of the equation-but they are not, they are only a part NOW with THIS
CONSCIOUSNESS and this ego-the effects of FOCUSING on certain
times/places/things at the exclusion of the "other' aspects of the self
that exist everywhere all at once. Just because you take things out of
your closet (out of spiritual or non-physical reality) and put them on
and wear them (create things in physical reality as "real") does not
mean that the other aspects or things in the closet that remain (the
other aspects of the oversoul selves) dissappear from existance-just
from sight!! The closet is still there-the other clothes (selves) are
still there-just because you make certain ones physical and "wear" them
does not discount the fact that all the rest are STILL THERE. They are
just out of sight. Now when you wish to wear them (create a new time
track with new props in that reality) you take them out of the closet
and get on new tracks that HAS THOSE PROPS as a part of the newly
defined time track (with the props and everything that goes with it THAT
HAVE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG) as the effect of REDEFINING THE YOU YOU ARE
NOW.
> >> >> If we are
> >> >> already what we are and we don't need to work on the bits we don't
> >> >> like/understand how can we ever be what we would prefer to be?
> >> >We can never INCREASE our interconnectedness to the "All That Is"! you
> >> >are as connected as you will ever be-the only thing you can increase is
> >> >your AWARENESS of your interconnectedness.
> >> Well OK - but that is probably not how it would seem to lot of people
> >> who were not aware of their interconnectedness.
> >Irrelevent.
> Sometimes you really piss me off. Aren't you interested in PROMOTING
> this awareness??
That ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVENT to whether we actually ARE interconnected
was my point-you are being emotive and illogical and think I am making
some sort of value judgment-the fact that people are unaware of their
interconnectedness has no effect on the fact that they ARE!!! That was
the point.
> If people don't KNOW what they are capable of a lot of
> them will remain unaware.
True, thats why I focus on helping them become aware of the fact that
they ARE unlimited, that they ARE infinite, that they ARE
interconnected-RATHER THAN ACTING LIKE THEM AND REINFORCING THAT THEY
AREN'T!!
> You think this is OK because this is their
> reality??
You are concocting a slippery slope-this is now irrelevent because you
missed the point to begin with.
> This is a complete paradox. You post here because you ARE
> promoting interconnectedness and then you say it is irrelevant if I
> think people should increase their knowledge and awareness but are going
> to have difficulty because they don't understand the concept.
No, I did not, I said whether they are aware of their interconnectedness
is irrelevent to whether they are.
> > We have become so accustomed to thinking the conscious mind is "in
> >control" that we assume the universe revolves around conscious
> >manipulations
> Not where I am we don't!
Well, you focus on the time/space definitions and complications say
otherwise.
> >> (please
> >> remember Edness=Cutness and refrain from doing this.........) :))
> >Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
> .....and you will be stuck with them forever.
Oh you know that do you? Don't be so sure-no one can be so sure of
anything-I do not know that and you do?
> How come your preference
> is to let these tedious lowlifes to inhabit your reality?
You assume that because I amnswer their posts they inhabit my reality.
How come you let bacteria inhabit your reality? We all live in the same
environment and yet some get dis-eases that others don't from the same
bacteria-it is NOT THE BACTERIA-IT IS THE ATTITUDE AND BELIEFS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL THAT CREATES A STATE OF BEING THAT ALLOWS THEM TO AFFECT
THEM-NOT THAT THEY ARE ALLOWING BACTERIA INTO THEIR REALITY-SEE???
Running from bacteria doesn't make bacteria go away. Building resistance
to bacteria and keeping oneself balanced and in integrity with what one
knows to be true keeps bacteria from affecting the organism. We don't
need to do anything to the bacteria or ignore them, it is our state of
being that defeats them, not outward actions or appearance.
> They don't
> exist in mine.
Well perhaps you are just "better" than me:-)
> >> Vibrational level I understand perfectly. I have yet to experience
> >> switching time tracks - but the possibility is intriguing.......
> >Well you do it all the time every time you change your mind:-)
> Not often then :)
Mercury in Taurus?:-)
> >> What occurs to me is that if EVERYONE was
> >> fulfilling their entire potential and creating their reality 100% who
> >> the hell would clean the toilets and do the donkey work? Amoebae?:)
> >You are confused, they ARE creating their reality 100%,
> Ok - I used the 'wrong' expression. They have not ignited the desire to
> individuate.
Sure they have-just not in the way you think they "should" or perhaps in
the way they prefer-but they still are creating their reality 100%-the
reality THEY BELIEVE TO BE THE MOST LIKELY ONE *TO* MANIFEST.
> > they are just
> >not aware of all of the portions of the consciousness and beliefs that
> >are creating the things they don't prefer. When you create a negative
> >reinforcing reality, you get perfectly conforming negative
> >synchronicity. It is not WHETHER you are creating your reality 100%, it
> >is about becoming aware of unconscious levels of belief that you believe
> >are the most LIKELY ones to manifest because you are taught to believe
> >they are true-and REDEFINING THEM to what you DO prefer so that the 100%
> >creation is of what you prefer rather than what you don't -and now THAT
> >reality is the most likely to manifest because you now believe THAT one
> >to be "true". Thats what the tool of astrology is for.
> 'that's what the tool of astrology is for' is a very strong statement!
It is one of the tools-is that what you are crying about? Or are you
just trying to challenge me because you are off balance like others that
challenge me simply to challenge because their ego is rampant and not
look at what I am saying?
Lancelot; "Aurthur! Your rage has unbalanced you! You would fight to the
death over a bridge you can easily go around?
Arthur; "Your arrogance bores me! Draw your sword so that I may humble
you and your arrogant boasts and with one mighty blow of Excalibur send
you into the sea!
Lancelot: Your zeal blinds you to the truth! It is not a wild boast
sir-but a curse, for I have never been defeated in joust or duel and
seek a king worthy of my service as his humble knight."
> I sort of agree but there are things I want to argue about and there is
> not enough space here! Here is just one:- You seem to be saying that
> you can uncover a person's unconscious levels of belief from their
> horoscope. Well yes I agree that you can but this is not always 100%
> accurate and even if you THINK you are 100% accurate you have to get
It is not important to be "100%" accurate-except for ego concerns, the
important thing is to bring to the consciousness of the individual those
things that will allow them to redefine the reality more to their
preference to imporve the quality of their life-this life. HOW that
happens whether with the chart-cards, toothpicks, psychology, or jumping
jacks is IRRELEVENT.
>the
> client to believe this
If the client comes to me in integrity and the earnest perspective of
wanting to improve the quality of their life THEY WILL KNOW THAT PROOF
IS IRRELEVENT AS WELL! And we will work together to find the "grail"
they seek, no matter HOW it has come about that what they have now is
not "it."
>- and should you really be getting the client to
> believe what YOU believe when there is a possibility you could be wrong?
I am not "getting the client" to do anything-I am OFFERING SUGGESTIONS,
RECCOMMENDATIONS, I ASK NO ONE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING SIMPLY BECAUSE I SAY
IT-IF IT SERVES THEY WILL USE IT IF IT DOESN'T THEY WON'T ---no matter
WHAT any of us think it "should" be. This aforemention principle applies
to ANYTHING IN ANYONES LIFE-logic, facts, scientific experiements,
degrees, titles etc. ARE IRRELEVENT-the person will always extract what
they need from things and apply it the way they deem necessary ANYWAY!!!
> And if you say you are never wrong and I am only sometimes wrong because
I don't preoccupy myself or the client with "rights and wrongs" we
usually are so into discovering what we can that will serve no one
cares. Nor would I waste their time or mine by worrying about it.
> I'm not using your method I will personally get on a plane to California
> and strangle you!
You were supposed to be here in September what happened??? :-)))))) You
are having difficulty if you are- from injecting judgment into the whole
scenario-there is no "right and wrong" there is analytically
correct-which is the effect of percieving anothers momentum and beliefs
without projecting-or projecting as little as possible your beliefs and
judgments into the scenarios of their life or view-this comes about from
refraining FROM rights and wrongs.
> I am thinking here of twins - of which I have had two
> sets recently and you could NOT have interpreted the same chart in the
> same way for both of them because they are different! At least the
> energy is the same but the expression differed.
Yes, they express different levels of the same chart I have never argued
anything otherwise.
> >> My little nagging worry (besides Mercury and Venus!) is that when you
> >> are talking about creating your own reality, you never say that you have
> >> to KNOW the reality you are already living before you can create another
> >> (better) one.
> >I addressed this above.
> >Better is a subjective value judgment-you mean prefer.
> Nit picking!
Analytically correct.
> > Yes, by
> >understanding one's psyche is the as[pect you are speaking of-and yes I
> >do speak of it-but you all always forget it-I always say that you must
> >understand your beliefs that are unconscious so that you can own
> >them-the way to own them is to acknowledge your physical experiences
> >(and understand you chart-overcompensations etc. psychologically) as
> >being the product of them, once you own them you can redefine them-but
> >yes you must own them first.
> I honestly don't believe you can do this just by having your horoscope
> read! Understanding your unconscious beliefs is a painful and lengthy
> experience for many people and redefining them is even harder.
It is lifelong, you "can" do anything, and NOTHING HAS to be painful nor
lengthy-but if it is use that too. Saying "redefining them is even
harder" is a definition YOU create that MAKES it harder.
> > But you are free to change your reality at
> >any given moment and are not "stuck" on any momentum or belief. They are
> >all redefinable.
> >> This seems to be to be extremely important - because if
> >> you do not understand the point you are starting from and if you have
> >> not looked at it and decided that it is not what you prefer, then
> >> anything you create will be a fantasy rather than a reality. You really
> >> need to KNOW yourself and understand what is hampering your development
> >> before you can move forward. I have asked you this before and never
> >> really had a satisfactory reply. Please tell me whether or not you
> >> agree with this.
> >I have replied but you never pay any attention to it.
> :( Well I'm Mars mode at present so I'm and seeing your verbal
> onslaught as a challenge. When I'm in Venus mode it seems like an
> assault which is a little uncomfortable for me so on Venus days I don't
> pay much attention:) BTW this is just an observation and I do not
> require to be told that this is my problem and nothing to do with you:)
Good!
> >> The reason I am anxious about this is I see, in my work, just how hard
> >> it is for some people to acknowledge that they have potential to create
> >> anything at all - and even when they can see that what they are living
> >> is due for change it is incredibly hard WORK for them. For you to see
> >> self development/reality creation as an inspiration you have to be half
> >> way there in the first place!
> >But to SEE anything you MUST BELIVE IT FIRST yes-you are correct-that is
> >why I focus on the belief-because action follows belief.
> >People learn by example and by acting-not by telling, when the student
> >is ready the teacher appears. There doesn't need to be any other special
> >circumstances other than the willingness to know oneself and and to
> >remain open.
> Trouble is I am constantly faced with people who desperately need to
> grow but do not have the ability to 'know' themselves. Although I
> suppose a small step is better than none. Sometimes it's frustrating.
But is this YOUR judgment that they "desparately need to grow"? Or
theirs? If they have a "desparate need to grow" in my view then they
will-on the other hand if I believe they have a desparate need to grow
but they are not-it is more likely to be my JUDGMENT that they need to
grow-and they are just fine in the state they are now.
It is THEIR PERCEPTION OF STRESS that determines my offering of
service-not mine.
> >> 'You might as well face it you're addicted to love' Tina Turner :))
> >I don't think that was Tina, I think it was Palmer? Not sure.
> Geez......I think I am typing black words on a white background - what
> do you think??????:) When I was bopping around my kitchen on Saturday
> morning it was to Tina singing that. OK? It was only to make you laugh
> anyway (sigh.........)
Ha. Hows that?:-) I've never heard her sing it, you like those Leo
ascendings eh? You would like hearing me sing it too.
And yes, I am addicted to love:-)
--
"If the sun refused to shine, I would still be loving you. When
mountains crumble to-the sea. There would still be you-and me." Robert
Plant Led Zepplin
Edmond Wollmann
> >> To say *It-is-as-if*
> >Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
> [snip cuz I just wanted to]
> Tell me, Ed, I keep seeing this Mars in Libra and it appears from the feel
> of the writings I've seen on it here, that it's not a good thing.
Well good and bad are subjective judgments-but in a sense this is what
planets in detriment or fall tell us the person who has them is doing
with the planet so placed. By itself it simply refers to a person who is
not comforatble with natural assertion-that the ego is "a bad thing" and
hence work consciously to be accepted and appreciated or agreeable-this
can translate into repression or suppression of natural instincts to
promote the self (like Freud himself had Mars in Libra Rx-double
repression!) so they may judge singular self assertion as "bad" when it
is just a product of being physical.
In this persons case I was pointing out that this need for acceptance
because of a lack of trust in the "goodness" of self assertion,
manifests as a need to see all sides of an argument endlessly. Seeing
all sides is fine-I do that with Mercury in Gemini-but it cannot be an
end in itself. A person must choose preference and act.
> Is this
> true???
> I have a friend who just got his chart and he has Libra in Mars, not the
> ascendant either but in the 7th house.
Here is a double suggestion of others and social acceptance being the
tail wagging the dog.
> Not sure of which type of chart he
> got done, just know that he was awfully excited he had it done.
> Thanks in advance for any info.
Well I am glad he was excited he had it done. I use it for a tool for
insight into the psyche and to reveal beliefs we may have about reality.
Because I know that we create that reality by the definitions we hold.
Therefore to change the reality we must understand the definitions we
hold that are not always apparent on the surface or clearly cognizable.
Once owned we can choose to redefine them to our preference by
understanding WHY we may have chosen to believe the way we did in the
past.
Hope this was helpful.
--
"He who knows others is clever, he who knows himself has discernment."
Lao-Tzu, 6th century B.C.
Roger L. Satterlee
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Satori wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344107...@aznet.net>...
>
> > >> To say *It-is-as-if*
>
> > >Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
>
>
> > Tell me, Ed, I keep seeing this Mars in Libra and it appears from the feel
> > of the writings I've seen on it here, that it's not a good thing.
>
> Well good and bad are subjective judgments-but in a sense this is what
> planets in detriment or fall tell us the person who has them is doing
> with the planet so placed. By itself it simply refers to a person who is
> not comforatble with natural assertion-that the ego is "a bad thing" and
> hence work consciously to be accepted and appreciated or agreeable-this
> can translate into repression or suppression of natural instincts to
> promote the self (like Freud himself had Mars in Libra Rx-double
> repression!) so they may judge singular self assertion as "bad" when it
> is just a product of being physical.
> In this persons case I was pointing out that this need for acceptance
> because of a lack of trust in the "goodness" of self assertion,
> manifests as a need to see all sides of an argument endlessly. Seeing
> all sides is fine-I do that with Mercury in Gemini-but it cannot be an
> end in itself. A person must choose preference and act.
>
Freud's chart is not a very good example unless one simply wanted
to show that Mars is the focus of Freud's chart--it is a singleton planet
having half of the chart to itself and part of a T_Square...whatever the
sign, Mars would be the most prominent symbol in his chart and the Sun
the ego and Saturn inhibitions etc., etc., etc..
I have no ability to see all sides of an argument endlessly..I
decided that you are a manic/depressive a long time ago, and a.a. is
truly an asylum run by the lunatics.
Satori
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344232...@aznet.net>...
>Satori wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344107...@aznet.net>...
>> >Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
>> >> To say *It-is-as-if*
>
>> >Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
>
>> [snip cuz I just wanted to]
>
>> Tell me, Ed, I keep seeing this Mars in Libra and it appears from the
feel
>> of the writings I've seen on it here, that it's not a good thing.
>
>Well good and bad are subjective judgments-but in a sense this is what
>planets in detriment or fall tell us the person who has them is doing
>with the planet so placed. By itself it simply refers to a person who is
>not comforatble with natural assertion-that the ego is "a bad thing" and
>hence work consciously to be accepted and appreciated or agreeable-this
>can translate into repression or suppression of natural instincts to
>promote the self (like Freud himself had Mars in Libra Rx-double
>repression!) so they may judge singular self assertion as "bad" when it
>is just a product of being physical.
>In this persons case I was pointing out that this need for acceptance
>because of a lack of trust in the "goodness" of self assertion,
>manifests as a need to see all sides of an argument endlessly. Seeing
>all sides is fine-I do that with Mercury in Gemini-but it cannot be an
>end in itself. A person must choose preference and act.
Thank you for replying. It makes sense, what you say.
>> Is this
>> true???
>> I have a friend who just got his chart and he has Libra in Mars, not the
>> ascendant either but in the 7th house.
>
>Here is a double suggestion of others and social acceptance being the
>tail wagging the dog.
I'm not sure I follow you here though. Can you expound a bit on this double
suggestion and tail wagging the dog, please? Thanks! :)
>> Not sure of which type of chart he
>> got done, just know that he was awfully excited he had it done.
>> Thanks in advance for any info.
>
>Well I am glad he was excited he had it done. I use it for a tool for
>insight into the psyche and to reveal beliefs we may have about reality.
>Because I know that we create that reality by the definitions we hold.
>Therefore to change the reality we must understand the definitions we
>hold that are not always apparent on the surface or clearly cognizable.
>Once owned we can choose to redefine them to our preference by
>understanding WHY we may have chosen to believe the way we did in the
>past.
>Hope this was helpful.
Actually it is helpful. I like getting different views from others, esp.
the positive views. :) Thanks once again!
Satori!
>"He who knows others is clever, he who knows himself has discernment."
>Lao-Tzu, 6th century B.C.
Marsha
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> infectious rage which only seeks an individual's motivation the way a > vampire seeks blood.
What's wrong with seeking "an individual's motivation"?
I left out the colorful descriptions since they are obviously just a
matter of your personal opinion of a person who looks for motivations.
> Rog
> --
> peda...@geocities.com
> 11:53PM EDT 26Jul50 76W48 42N06
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Marsha
Marsha
Lady Nidiffer wrote:
>
> Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <34410FC1...@mindspring.com>...
> > Lady Nidiffer wrote:
> > Not much :)
> > 1. Not enough writing for a good sample
> >
> > 2. It's printed, not written (unless the person prints always)
> >
> > 3. You need an *original* copy to do a scientific analysis. Copies
>
> How would one go about doing a scientific analysis?
One would have to be a Certified Graphoanalyst.
> Do you have some references for this? or for any testing
> for accuracies?
The testing's been done and is widely accepted. Ever hear of
handwriting experts called on in legal cases?
Check with the Graphoanalysis Society in Chicago. They used to be on
Wacker Drive.
> Lady Nidiffer (former Scorpio)
> Still looking for a new astro sign
> Free astrology software for fun and giggles
> http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~wnidiffe/fun.html
Marsha
Satori
Ok, now I understand what you mean. Thanks for replying...AGAIN...to me in
my misunderstandings. :)
I do have one other question though. Seeing how his Mars in Libra in the
7th house, the house of partnerships if I remember correctly. Do you think
that this means the description you gave me refers to dealings with his
partnerships, i.e. business and personal?
Thank you for you time, again. <smile>
Satori!
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344387...@aznet.net>...
>Satori wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344232...@aznet.net>...
>> >Satori wrote:
>
>> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344107...@aznet.net>...
>> >> >Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
>> >> >> To say *It-is-as-if*
>
>> >> >Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
>
>> >> [snip cuz I just wanted to]
>
>> >> Tell me, Ed, I keep seeing this Mars in Libra and it appears from the
>> feel
>> >> of the writings I've seen on it here, that it's not a good thing.
>
>> >Well good and bad are subjective judgments-but in a sense this is what
>> >planets in detriment or fall tell us the person who has them is doing
>> >with the planet so placed. By itself it simply refers to a person who is
>> >not comforatble with natural assertion-that the ego is "a bad thing" and
>> >hence work consciously to be accepted and appreciated or agreeable-this
>> >can translate into repression or suppression of natural instincts to
>> >promote the self (like Freud himself had Mars in Libra Rx-double
>> >repression!) so they may judge singular self assertion as "bad" when it
>> >is just a product of being physical.
>> >In this persons case I was pointing out that this need for acceptance
>> >because of a lack of trust in the "goodness" of self assertion,
>> >manifests as a need to see all sides of an argument endlessly. Seeing
>> >all sides is fine-I do that with Mercury in Gemini-but it cannot be an
>> >end in itself. A person must choose preference and act.
>
>> Thank you for replying. It makes sense, what you say.
>
>Thank you for creating that.
>
>> >> Is this
>> >> true???
>> >> I have a friend who just got his chart and he has Libra in Mars, not
the
>> >> ascendant either but in the 7th house.
>
>> >Here is a double suggestion of others and social acceptance being the
>> >tail wagging the dog.
>
>> I'm not sure I follow you here though. Can you expound a bit on this
double
>> suggestion and tail wagging the dog, please? Thanks! :)
>
>The fact that Mars is IN Libra and in the 7th house (Libra reference
>again). I always read the house position as if it is in the sign that
>the house is ruled by in the natural zodiac-i.e. Mars in 7 in any sign
>is "like" Mars in Libra, the 7th sign. So being in 7 and in Libra is a
>"double reference" to the idea of the need to prove the self, be
>socially accepted and place the powers of identity definition with the
>"other" or shadow aspects of the self-typically because of a disbelief
>in the validity or positiveness of the "Arian" idea or separated, self
>directed, self definition and assertion with instinct.
>
>> >> Not sure of which type of chart he
>> >> got done, just know that he was awfully excited he had it done.
>> >> Thanks in advance for any info.
>
>> >Well I am glad he was excited he had it done. I use it for a tool for
>> >insight into the psyche and to reveal beliefs we may have about reality.
>> >Because I know that we create that reality by the definitions we hold.
>> >Therefore to change the reality we must understand the definitions we
>> >hold that are not always apparent on the surface or clearly cognizable.
>> >Once owned we can choose to redefine them to our preference by
>> >understanding WHY we may have chosen to believe the way we did in the
>> >past.
>> >Hope this was helpful.
>
>> Actually it is helpful. I like getting different views from others, esp.
>> the positive views. :) Thanks once again!
>
>Thank you for your positive remarks:-)
>--
>"The Universe has no built-in meaning, we give it meaning by what we
>believe is true or have been taught to believe is true. Bashar,
>"Perfection", 1987.
>
>"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
>Hamlet-Shakespeare
>
>"I know and am persuaded by the lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of
>itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean." Romans
>14:14
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
> Well the point I was making with that verbiage is that life works when
> you let it and our natural state is effortless-so by relaxing
> judgments etc. we allow things to happen rather than having to make > them happen.
OK, I see.
> We may create anxiety because we are judging that we SHOULD do it even
> when we don't feel like it. There may be a reason for not feeling like
> it, like just to sit and reflect maybe and something comes to you that
> changes things dramatically even though it may not seem like it at the
> time.
Yes. This makes sense.
....
> > I do agree with that. I probably have some beliefs though that I'm
> > not consciously aware of that conflict.
>
> Well Saturn in 5 may be "shoulds" before extending for some reason.
> Most likely the idea that you may "risk" losing something if you do.
Yup, there it is again :)
> > > Life is not "hard" a "battle" "no
> > > pain no gain" IT IS WHATEVER YOU DEFINE IT TO BE-but it does not
> > > HAVE to be anything. Does this help?
>
> > Yes, thankyou.
>
> > > And please I am not "yelling" K??:-)
>
> > I know--you're just emphasizing :)
>
> Thanks Marsha, I don't know if I am helping but this stuff all fits
> together very well. It is just very hard to explain all of the aspects
> of it-this comes over time.
You have helped--probably more than I know ;) I think I approach the
same thing from different angles and end up at the same place:
Saturn--And you've been very patient--often :)
Marsha
Lady Nidiffer
Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<34410FC1...@mindspring.com>...
> Lady Nidiffer wrote:
> >
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
> > <344072...@aznet.net>...
> >
> > > Well I had to line this up, because if the time tracks are "already
> > > there" then we can only align with them by changing beliefs etc.
> > > which allow us to change frequency, then time tracks, I am going to
> > > include a quick drawing at the bottom (attached as a gif).
> > >
> >
> > Oh, dear Ed, you shouldn't have left a sample of your handwriting.
> > I wonder what the handwriting experts are going to do with that.
>
> Not much :)
> 1. Not enough writing for a good sample
>
> 2. It's printed, not written (unless the person prints always)
>
> 3. You need an *original* copy to do a scientific analysis. Copies
> aren't good, and scanned then printed copies would be worse.
How would one go about doing a scientific analysis?
Do you have some references for this? or for any testing
for accuracies?
I found a few on the web:
Someone with a PHd offering to do employee
handwriting analysis
http://members.tripod.com/~Margarete/personnel_screening
Can you imagine, someone getting fired because their
handwriting stinks.
An offer of a free handwriting analysis
http://www.business.u-net.com/~andyhunt/hwacont.htm
Little known facts about handwriting
http://www.totally-unique.com/graphology/
And of course, there was the obligatory picture
of Einstein.
I found also the Online journal of Ethics
critique of handwriting as a hiring tool.
http://condor.depaul.edu/ethics/hand.html
Edmond Wollmann
> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344107...@aznet.net>...
> >> >Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> >> >> To say *It-is-as-if*
> >> >Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
> >> [snip cuz I just wanted to]
Roger L. Satterlee
(one huge Leo snip begets the gist of an exchange)
Sartori wrote:
Thank you for replying. It makes sense, what you say.
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
Thank you for creating that.
Rog writes:
When all the details are accepted here as relevant and then
summarily ignored as essentially neutral material, we are left with the
quintessential material of this post: It is a studied phenomenon in
psychology, that the phrase,"What you say makes sense." has a predictable
autonomic response (really, I'm not making this up, I saw it yesterday on
NBC's Today program) --the subject relaxes his/her chest, unclenches
hands, respiration and blood pressure drop toward resting norms, and the
subject gives every appearance of being at ease. This phrase is actually
a tool used by therapists to produce this desirable response.
However, I observe here that this tool seems not produce a
relaxed use of ordinary language...the subject here still strains at
exprerssing a philosophical or religious agenda by invoking a rather
convoluted definition of the word *create*...What was *created* here
other than the relaxation associated with, "What you say makes
sense."...?
Rog...:)
Edmond Wollmann
Satori wrote:
> Ok, now I understand what you mean. Thanks for replying...AGAIN...to me in
> my misunderstandings. :)
> I do have one other question though. Seeing how his Mars in Libra in the
> 7th house, the house of partnerships if I remember correctly. Do you think
> that this means the description you gave me refers to dealings with his
> partnerships, i.e. business and personal?
> Thank you for you time, again. <smile>
Yes, it may reflect the TYPE of interactions, the reason they are of
that TYPE is because of the persons creation of them and their version
of them. So they will attract persons who have the same "issues" and
beliefs of self assertion and aggression, in order to reflect back to
themselves the idea that they are being (or have repressed).
Dealings with the public and close partnerships are reflected in the 7th
house more than professional. Professional are usually reflected in the
10th, 11th-however in an overall sense what ever the person IS will be
reflected in all of their life-because it is them.
> Satori!
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344387...@aznet.net>...
> >Satori wrote:
> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344232...@aznet.net>...
> >> >Satori wrote:
> >> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <344107...@aznet.net>...
> >> >> >Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> >> >> >> To say *It-is-as-if*
> >> >> >Mars in Libra (and in your case ruling the ascendant)
> >> >> [snip cuz I just wanted to]
> >> >> Tell me, Ed, I keep seeing this Mars in Libra and it appears from the
> >> feel
> >> >> of the writings I've seen on it here, that it's not a good thing.
> >> >Well good and bad are subjective judgments-but in a sense this is what
> >> >planets in detriment or fall tell us the person who has them is doing
> >> >with the planet so placed. By itself it simply refers to a person who is
> >> >not comforatble with natural assertion-that the ego is "a bad thing" and
> >> >hence work consciously to be accepted and appreciated or agreeable-this
> >> >can translate into repression or suppression of natural instincts to
> >> >promote the self (like Freud himself had Mars in Libra Rx-double
> >> >repression!) so they may judge singular self assertion as "bad" when it
> >> >is just a product of being physical.
> >> >In this persons case I was pointing out that this need for acceptance
> >> >because of a lack of trust in the "goodness" of self assertion,
> >> >manifests as a need to see all sides of an argument endlessly. Seeing
> >> >all sides is fine-I do that with Mercury in Gemini-but it cannot be an
> >> >end in itself. A person must choose preference and act.
> >> Thank you for replying. It makes sense, what you say.
> >Thank you for creating that.
> >> >> Is this
Sue Armitage
In article <3442DB...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>Sue Armitage wrote:
>
>
>> I know what I understand as parallel realities....... which may not be
>> the same thing....... What happens if you change to a different time
>> track and the people you live with stay on the same one?
>
>Then you won't be living together anymore. Or the INFINITE versions that
>exist will still have them in the new version that is included in yours.
>This happens all the time-you mean there aren't any people in your life
>who went on to something else and you know they are still alive but
>haven't seen them anymore?
Yes but I could see them if I wanted to, well most of them. It's not as
if they don't exist. Why is this a time track?
>
>> I am just thinking of the bible code which can only be understood in
>> retrospect because we have free will and our decisions change what
>> happens
>
>Assuming the Bible code is what it is cracked up to be.
Plenty of skeptics have been trying to disprove it and they are the ones
who are becoming more and more convinced of it's validity.
>
>> if this was encoded by some entity in advance
>
>No entity encodes anything in "advance" except you yourself of your own
>choices and everything is actually "happening" now, so you are
>"actually" choosing it now.
The Bible code comes from the original Hebrew text of the bible. The
scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
encoded in advance.
>
>> If people don't KNOW what they are capable of a lot of
>> them will remain unaware.
>
>True, thats why I focus on helping them become aware of the fact that
>they ARE unlimited, that they ARE infinite, that they ARE
>interconnected-RATHER THAN ACTING LIKE THEM AND REINFORCING THAT THEY
>AREN'T!!
Oh........they should (oops!) be more like you :)
>
>
>> This is a complete paradox. You post here because you ARE
>> promoting interconnectedness and then you say it is irrelevant if I
>> think people should increase their knowledge and awareness but are going
>> to have difficulty because they don't understand the concept.
>
>No, I did not, I said whether they are aware of their interconnectedness
>is irrelevent to whether they are.
It is NOT irrelevant to THEM! How can it be? They have to be aware of
their interconnectedness before they can act on it! I might live next
door to Pizza Hut but if I haven't noticed this I won't be buying any
Pizzas, will I?
>
>> > We have become so accustomed to thinking the conscious mind is "in
>> >control" that we assume the universe revolves around conscious
>> >manipulations
>
>> >Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
>
>> .....and you will be stuck with them forever.
>
>Oh you know that do you? Don't be so sure-no one can be so sure of
>anything-I do not know that and you do?
You said they would be stuck with you forever. If you are stuck to
them, they are stuck to you! You are stuck together!
>
>> They don't
>> exist in mine.
>
>Well perhaps you are just "better" than me:-)
Just SOMETIMES you get things right ...........:))
>
>
>
>> 'that's what the tool of astrology is for' is a very strong statement!
>
>It is one of the tools-is that what you are crying about? Or are you
>just trying to challenge me because you are off balance like others that
>challenge me simply to challenge because their ego is rampant and not
>look at what I am saying?
Don't be silly. You know that isn't true.
>
>Lancelot; "Aurthur! Your rage has unbalanced you! You would fight to the
>death over a bridge you can easily go around?
>Arthur; "Your arrogance bores me! Draw your sword so that I may humble
>you and your arrogant boasts and with one mighty blow of Excalibur send
>you into the sea!
>Lancelot: Your zeal blinds you to the truth! It is not a wild boast
>sir-but a curse, for I have never been defeated in joust or duel and
>seek a king worthy of my service as his humble knight."
:)) OK Lancelot...... but these things need discussing. I enjoy it, for
God's sake! You would rather I said 'Yes, Ed, yes Ed, three bags full
Ed!'?
>
>>- and should you really be getting the client to
>> believe what YOU believe when there is a possibility you could be wrong?
>
>I am not "getting the client" to do anything
Any astrologer or therapist is in a powerful position. I'm sure you
realise that and take it into consideration.
>
>> I honestly don't believe you can do this just by having your horoscope
>> read! Understanding your unconscious beliefs is a painful and lengthy
>> experience for many people and redefining them is even harder.
>
>It is lifelong, you "can" do anything, and NOTHING HAS to be painful nor
>lengthy-but if it is use that too. Saying "redefining them is even
>harder" is a definition YOU create that MAKES it harder.
Ed - I WATCH it being hard! My definitions are irrelevant. I feel the
client having difficulty. I am sympathetic to that difficulty and
support them through it! Rhetoric does not make problems disappear!
(although it can buoy someone up briefly :)
>
>
>> Trouble is I am constantly faced with people who desperately need to
>> grow but do not have the ability to 'know' themselves. Although I
>> suppose a small step is better than none. Sometimes it's frustrating.
>
>But is this YOUR judgment that they "desparately need to grow"?
Why are they sitting in front of me if they have not discovered that
there is something wrong with their lives? It is not my judgement - I
just articulate it!
> Or
>theirs? If they have a "desparate need to grow" in my view then they
>will-on the other hand if I believe they have a desparate need to grow
>but they are not-it is more likely to be my JUDGMENT that they need to
>grow-and they are just fine in the state they are now.
>It is THEIR PERCEPTION OF STRESS that determines my offering of
>service-not mine.
They often just feel bad. They don't know why or how to go about
feeling better.
Sue
Satori
Hey Rog, I did ask him another question which you left out of your post.
Tell me, did you do this just so you felt you could flame??
Satori
Roger L. Satterlee wrote in message <3444D9...@geocities.com>...
>(one huge Leo snip begets the gist of an exchange)
>Sartori wrote:
> Thank you for replying. It makes sense, what you say.
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Thank you for creating that.
>
Satori
Sherilyn
In article <XHJv7DA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
...
>
>The Bible code comes from the original Hebrew text of the bible. The
>scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
>on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
>retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
>encoded in advance.
The numerous _slightly different_ versions of biblical books in the dead
sea scrolls which share textual elements in common with the modern
"Textus Receptus" Torah (dating from the 11th century AD, I believe) in
which Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg found the
statistical anomalies, refute this claim quite readily (ref: Testament,
the Bible in History, by John Romer).
Here is a good mathematical page about the Torah code, which dispels
some of the tosh that has been talked about the code by the likes of
Drosnin.
http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/
Be prepared for a shock, though, this site actually contains serious
scientific and mathematical material, including an abridged version of
the original paper.
--
Sherilyn|Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
alt.astrology Twinkle, twinkle, little planet.
Posting FAQ http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/posting.txt
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
Roger L. Satterlee
Satori wrote:
>
> Hey Rog, I did ask him another question which you left out of your post.
> Tell me, did you do this just so you felt you could flame??
>
> Satori
I don't doubt I missed something in the tangle of the re:re:re:re:
postings...but when all has been examined for significant ideas, we are want to find
more than a convoluted allegory of the universe according to Ed and your
appreciation of how many clever metaphors seem to converge. The logic employed is
as consistent as any fiction writer's...the relationship between Ed *facts* shows a
resourceful creativity...My point is simple; as long as you do not challenge Ed's
version of *facts* he has a pleasant patronizing demeanor.
Satori, did walk down a "hallway" and choose, whatever, including your natal
chart, before you were born? Ed's entire philosophy is constructed on such
premises--metaphors made into concrete reality for the purpose of avoiding
*reality*...no flame intended, this is simply schizophrenic thinking, and should be
addressed as such. You will eventually become a suspect in one of his paraniod
delusions should you ever seriously disagree with him. His emphasis on "integrity"
refers to his personality and its apparent fragmentation, his constant attention to
the "fears" and egocentric behaviour of others is more likely a desperate search for
someone with an ego strong enough to help him put the pieces together. Ironically,
he would sooner attack and attempt to unbalance the ego of another so that he can
feel competent...no weaker than the average person, and so it goes. Your clever pet
is not quite domesticated and it will nip you...Ed is the Wizard of Oz turned ring
wraith, and his quest is all about power. Is this a flame?...I'm not sure I know.
Rog
> Roger L. Satterlee wrote in message <3444D9...@geocities.com>...
> >(one huge Leo snip begets the gist of an exchange)
> >Sartori wrote:
> > Thank you for replying. It makes sense, what you say.
> >
> >Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Thank you for creating that.
> >
Sue Armitage
In article <qZWZJLAt...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
>>on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
>>retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
>>encoded in advance.
>
>sea scrolls which share textual elements in common with the modern
>"Textus Receptus" Torah (dating from the 11th century AD, I believe) in
>which Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg found the
>statistical anomalies, refute this claim quite readily (ref: Testament,
>the Bible in History, by John Romer).
>
>Here is a good mathematical page about the Torah code, which dispels
>some of the tosh that has been talked about the code by the likes of
>Drosnin.
>
> http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/
>
>Be prepared for a shock, though, this site actually contains serious
>scientific and mathematical material, including an abridged version of
>the original paper.
Thanks. I'll have a look at this. Why be prepared for a shock? I like
the idea of the Bible Code but I have only read the believers version!
Unlike astrology, I do not have the knowledge to test this for myself,
so as far as the bible code is concerned, I have to evaluate it in the
same way that you evaluate astrology - i.e. I can only make an emotional
choice based on what I hear others say:)
Sue
--
Sue Armitage
Marcus S. Robinson, D.C.H.
Check out:
Urban Shaman's Home Page
http://www.msr-wetware.com/osh1.htm
Featuring "One Song Hero: The Inward Journey of an Urban Shaman",
an interactive multimedia electronic book focusing on personal
growth and spiritual development. This site has 100's of links,
the Voyager E-Journal, webBoards and Chat environment, and email
discussion groups. Its a great place for enlightened conversation
and growth.
illuminata,
Marcus S. Robinson, D.C.H.
wetWare, Inc.
"human technology for the 21st century"
http://www.msr-wetware.com
Brendan McKay
In article <e3d9pCAp...@denys.demon.co.uk>,
Sue Armitage <s...@denys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <qZWZJLAt...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
> <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <XHJv7DA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
> ><s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
> >...
> >>
> >>scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
> >>on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
> >>retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
> >>encoded in advance.
> >
> >sea scrolls which share textual elements in common with the modern
> >"Textus Receptus" Torah (dating from the 11th century AD, I believe) in
> >which Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg found the
> >statistical anomalies, refute this claim quite readily (ref: Testament,
> >the Bible in History, by John Romer).
> >
> >Here is a good mathematical page about the Torah code, which dispels
> >some of the tosh that has been talked about the code by the likes of
> >Drosnin.
> >
> > http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/
> >
> >Be prepared for a shock, though, this site actually contains serious
> >scientific and mathematical material, including an abridged version of
> >the original paper.
>
> Thanks. I'll have a look at this. Why be prepared for a shock? I like
> the idea of the Bible Code but I have only read the believers version!
>
> Unlike astrology, I do not have the knowledge to test this for myself,
> so as far as the bible code is concerned, I have to evaluate it in the
> same way that you evaluate astrology - i.e. I can only make an emotional
> choice based on what I hear others say:)
An antidote is available here:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html
Brendan.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Sherilyn
In article <alR+mBAY...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <6PERyaAD...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>
>>You are aware, aren't you, that the way I evaluate systems of astrology
>>is not emotional at all.
>
>I don't really know how you think you evaluate astrology since I stopped
>reading your posts a long time ago - as soon as I discovered you were
>not an astrologer, in fact.
An astrologer is simply someone who uses an astrological system. I am,
therefore, an astrologer. I use the Mornington Crescent System.
>
>I do, however, know that the abhorrence of a subject that you have not
>studied or used HAS to be emotional.
You might have a case if I did, in fact, abhor astrology. Actually, I'm
indifferent to it, having satisfied myself long ago that the
scientifically testable parts do not work.
One thing that keeps me in alt.astrology is the extraordinary emotional
immaturity of so many of the astrologers--this alone makes the newsgroup
entertaining. It's also important, I think, to maintain an environment
in which it is possible for people to discuss all aspects of astrology--
which is after all the purpose of the newsgroup.
As for alt.astrology.metapsych, it's clear that Edmond is not beyond
breaching his own charter when it suits him.
>
>Please don't try to engage me in combat as I have far too many
>interesting distractions to get involved in futile discussions.
>
>Have a nice day,
>
>Sue
>
No problem. It would be difficult to have a meaningful conversation
with someone so eager to caricature my position rather than to explore
it, so quick to score points, and so slow to understand.
Edmond Wollmann
Stop crossposting to alt.asatrology.metapsych. You are not welcome
either. Does not either you or your server demon.uc.co have any repect
for anyone!!!!!!
Since this group is proposed on the basis of ethical and respectable
service oriented counsel and astrological application, the following
classes of posts are not welcome;
1) Advertisements of any sort (other than normal sig file references
related to this group).
2) Arguments as to the validity of astrology AT ALL, either
scientifically or theologically.
3) Cynical or otherwise detracting and negative and conflictive
argumentation that deviates from the subject matter.
4) JPEG's, GIF's or other images not specifically related to topic
discussion.
5) Defamation or derogatory/abusive attacks on individuals simply
because of disagreement.
> >Have a nice day,
> >Sue
SNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/)
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <XHJv7DA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
><s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
>...
>>
>>The Bible code comes from the original Hebrew text of the bible. The
>>scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
>>on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
>>retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
>>encoded in advance.
Pete comments: I don't agree with this self serving history of the
source of the bible. Whether Jesus was a black Ethopian Jew should
not be the source of your hate towards other bible sources.
>
>The numerous _slightly different_ versions of biblical books in the dead
>sea scrolls which share textual elements in common with the modern
>"Textus Receptus" Torah (dating from the 11th century AD, I believe) in
>which Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg found the
>statistical anomalies, refute this claim quite readily (ref: Testament,
>the Bible in History, by John Romer).
Pete comments: this just isn't true. There never was a rational refutation,
just as there never was a rational basis for the original belief.
>
>Here is a good mathematical page about the Torah code, which dispels
>some of the tosh that has been talked about the code by the likes of
>Drosnin.
>
> http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/
>
>Be prepared for a shock, though, this site actually contains serious
>scientific and mathematical material, including an abridged version of
>the original paper.
Pete comments: so this too is a result of faulty perception. There isn't
any rational basis for this kind of bible interpretation. The bible
is merely a record of actual events that took place here on Earth.
No more, no less. And of course here we have someone ignorant enough
to believe otherwise.
Pete
Einar Andreas R|dland
peteja...@c-zone.net wrote:
>
> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The numerous _slightly different_ versions of biblical books in the dead
> >sea scrolls which share textual elements in common with the modern
> >"Textus Receptus" Torah (dating from the 11th century AD, I believe) in
> >which Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg found the
> >statistical anomalies, refute this claim quite readily (ref: Testament,
> >the Bible in History, by John Romer).
>
> Pete comments: this just isn't true. There never was a rational refutation,
> just as there never was a rational basis for the original belief.
The aim of the study was to provide scientific evidence of the presence
of some sort of code or encoded pattern. The motivation, however, was
undoubtably one of providing evidence for a religious belief. Of course,
the correctness of a religious belief itself cannot be tested on a
rational basis. The claim of scientific evidence of a pattern or code
can be debated rationally though.
The "Textus Receptus" Torah, being as far as I have understood an edited
compilation based on a number of slightly different versions, is not the
letter-by-letter match of any original. This contradicts the motivation
for looking for such codes, and the interpretation of the findings as
evidence of such a code. Even if an initial pattern or code is to have
been present in some original text, this should no longer be detectable
by the methods used by Witztum et.al. Of course, the belief itself that
such a code exists cannot be refuted on a rational basis.
What remains, however, is a statistical finding in what should, at least
as regards the ELS' (Equidistant Letter Sequences) covering large
distances, be considered a random text. To a mathematician/statistician,
the puzzle lies in detecting a possible error in the methodology; a
puzzle that may be of some academic interest in demonstrating the
fallibility of man's reasoning.
Given this background knowledge, the findings are of no (religious)
interest. As I understand, the Australian team lead by McKey was not
even able to find a scholar in Hebrew who was interested in
participating. From what I have picked up, scholars in Hebrew or
religion generally appear to regard this as a purely statistical puzzle
without any interest to them.
Without having had the time to look deeply into this, it appears to me
that the method used by Witztum et.al. is not a very good one: ie.
looking at how well word-pairs v_i--w_i match in the text, and then
compare to how well randomly permuted w_i match the v_i. Eg. if some
words occur more frequently (as ELS's) than others, which should be
expected, this alone may give rise to biases. At least, it means that
the p-values calculated cannot be regarded as p-values for testing the
hypotheses of interest; it may tell you something about the lists rather
than about the text. Rather than randomize the list of words,
randomizing the text (eg. permuting words, sentences, etc.) might be a
better approach. (As far as I can see, two such randomizations are made,
but this is not enough to calculate a p-value, nor is it intended for
such use.)
Einar
--
Einar Andreas Rodland E-mail: ein...@math.uio.no
University of Oslo, Norway
Departement of Mathematics http://www.math.uio.no/~einara
Sherilyn
In article <3446d59c...@news.c-zone.net>, "\"http://www.c-
zone.net/sidereal/" <peteja...@c-zone.net> writes
>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <XHJv7DA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
>><s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
>>...
>>>
>>>scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
>>>on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
>>>retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
>>>encoded in advance.
>
>source of the bible. Whether Jesus was a black Ethopian Jew should
>not be the source of your hate towards other bible sources.
I think you're a little hard on Sue here, Pete. Her statement above
does not say anything about Jesus, being concerned with the Torah, the
books of which were all written before Jesus was born.
>>
>>The numerous _slightly different_ versions of biblical books in the dead
>>sea scrolls which share textual elements in common with the modern
>>"Textus Receptus" Torah (dating from the 11th century AD, I believe) in
>>which Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg found the
>>statistical anomalies, refute this claim quite readily (ref: Testament,
>>the Bible in History, by John Romer).
>
>Pete comments: this just isn't true. There never was a rational refutation,
>just as there never was a rational basis for the original belief.
My statement above _is_, I submit, a rational refutation of Sue's quite
rational claim, based on her (IMO) erroneous assumption of the
faithfulness of the copying process, that the Torah was encoded in
advance.
>>
>>Here is a good mathematical page about the Torah code, which dispels
>>some of the tosh that has been talked about the code by the likes of
>>Drosnin.
>>
>> http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/
>>
>>Be prepared for a shock, though, this site actually contains serious
>>scientific and mathematical material, including an abridged version of
>>the original paper.
>
>Pete comments: so this too is a result of faulty perception. There isn't
>any rational basis for this kind of bible interpretation. The bible
>is merely a record of actual events that took place here on Earth.
>No more, no less. And of course here we have someone ignorant enough
>to believe otherwise.
Sue's belief was quite rational on the basis of her perception of
messages encoded in the bible. It is quite feasible for the author of a
book to encode a secret message in it. If Sue assumes divine authority
for the bible (I have jewish friends who claim it was presented to Moses
by God himself) then on that basis a divine encoding would be possible.
It doesn't happen to be my belief, not least because of the modern
origin of the current scripture, but when predicated on religious
belief, it is a rational one.
I commend Einar Andreas R|dland for his lucid and informative post on
the methodological puzzle posed by the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg
findings.
Edmond Wollmann
Please stop crossposting sci.skeptic to alt.astrology.metapsych.
Sherilyn wrote:
> Edmond is apparently so desperate for me to read his insights into this
> posting that he emailed me. As I didn't want to waste money downloading
> email from Edmond, I deleted it from the pop server. Please send me no
> more email, Edmond.
SNIP!
Edmond Wollmann
Sue Armitage wrote:
> In article <3442DB...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
> >Sue Armitage wrote:
> >> I know what I understand as parallel realities....... which may not be
> >> the same thing....... What happens if you change to a different time
> >> track and the people you live with stay on the same one?
> >Then you won't be living together anymore. Or the INFINITE versions that
> >exist will still have them in the new version that is included in yours.
> >This happens all the time-you mean there aren't any people in your life
> >who went on to something else and you know they are still alive but
> >haven't seen them anymore?
> Yes but I could see them if I wanted to, well most of them. It's not as
> if they don't exist. Why is this a time track?
Please refer to my gif. The time tracks are very similar-each one "lined
up" infinitely to the right. Since each would contain very minor
variations moving from one to the other would simply reflect these minor
variations. You say "Yes but I could see them if I wanted to, well most
of them" and whether you do CHOOSE that or not would move you over to a
NEW time track which would have ITS past present (the seeing them or
not) and the probable future moving up the y axis through time.
> >> I am just thinking of the bible code which can only be understood in
> >> retrospect because we have free will and our decisions change what
> >> happens
> >Assuming the Bible code is what it is cracked up to be.
> Plenty of skeptics have been trying to disprove it and they are the ones
> who are becoming more and more convinced of it's validity.
I've looked at it and there may be some truth to the predictability, but
this really does not deny its transformative quality-or free will or
anything else-IT can simply be an encoded "time track" probability chart
based on the momentums and understandings at the time it was encoded.
And if you follow it closely not ALL things are verifyable nor do they
precisely conform to what "actually" happened (that specific time
track).
> >> if this was encoded by some entity in advance
> >No entity encodes anything in "advance" except you yourself of your own
> >choices and everything is actually "happening" now, so you are
> >"actually" choosing it now.
> The Bible code comes from the original Hebrew text of the bible.
WRITTEN by the persons existent at the time CHOSEN by the HALLWAYS of
incarnational choice THEN. (pls see my post on the "Hallway A"
explanations.)
> The
> scholars who handed this down always impressed that it was to be handed
> on verbatim in it's original form and it is from this that the
> retrospective historical facts have been taken. It MUST have been
> encoded in advance.
Well there are no MUSTS but yes perhaps it is a GUIDE just like
astrology is a GUIDE not dicta.
> >> If people don't KNOW what they are capable of a lot of
> >> them will remain unaware.
> >True, thats why I focus on helping them become aware of the fact that
> >they ARE unlimited, that they ARE infinite, that they ARE
> >interconnected-RATHER THAN ACTING LIKE THEM AND REINFORCING THAT THEY
> >AREN'T!!
> Oh........they should (oops!) be more like you :)
No Ms Smart alec, but people don't learn by preaching they learn by
EXAMPLE. And I am not responsible FOR anyone only to them by being all
that I can be IN example-so there is no other answer. To say "oh they
should be more like you" is simply ego defense for a statement that
contained no ego to begin with and tells us more of you than me.
> >> This is a complete paradox. You post here because you ARE
> >> promoting interconnectedness and then you say it is irrelevant if I
> >> think people should increase their knowledge and awareness but are going
> >> to have difficulty because they don't understand the concept.
> >No, I did not, I said whether they are aware of their interconnectedness
> >is irrelevent to whether they are.
> It is NOT irrelevant to THEM!
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE AGAIN!!!! I nowhere said ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IT IS
TO *THEM*. You are being emotive and illogical. WHAT it is to them is
STILL IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THEY ARE!!!
> How can it be? They have to be aware of
> their interconnectedness before they can act on it!
Dammit I was not talking about ACTING on it, I was simply stating that
whether or whether they are not aware is irrelevent to the fact that
they are INTERCONNECTED-and that will stand through 100 of your
"other" argument-what they DO WITH THIS AWARENESS OR LACK THEREOF IS
ANOTHER ISSUE!
> I might live next
> door to Pizza Hut but if I haven't noticed this I won't be buying any
> Pizzas, will I?
And so all you do is reiterate what I said at the beginning all in one
statement. That we cannot be anymore interconnected than we are we can
only increase our AWARENESS of our interconnectedness-now like the
cynics because of your defensiveness and projection we have spent 3
posts to come back to what I said from square one! Thank you for serving
in that way!
> >> > We have become so accustomed to thinking the conscious mind is "in
> >> >control" that we assume the universe revolves around conscious
> >> >manipulations
> >> >Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
> >> .....and you will be stuck with them forever.
> >Oh you know that do you? Don't be so sure-no one can be so sure of
> >anything-I do not know that and you do?
> You said they would be stuck with you forever. If you are stuck to
> them, they are stuck to you! You are stuck together!
No, I am just different than what they are used to belittling, because I
know what they THINK they know and anything they can present I have
already thought of. Now because they are so used to the astrologer or
metaphysical person NOT knowing these things and usually backing off or
losing track, I can answer anything they can come up with AND show WHY
they are doing what they are doing. Because they are hardheaded
Saturnians who fear change-and I am a hardheaded Taurean who NEVER gives
up or quits when I know I am correct-it will be up to THEM-not me as to
when their rigidity either acknowledges the role personal motivation
plays in their defensive attacks or they will simply be exasperated
because I WILL NEVER AQUIESCE-PERIOD. I did not pursue them, they are
pursuing me. There is nothing for me to change. If I was in their group
or field trying to force them to do something-I would realize that at
some point it will be self defeating because I went to THEIR home to try
to change THEIR reality and that is NOT possible. I could suggest,
explain, offer different views, but as long as I was in their group (as
they are in alt.astrology) to seek to down that whole VIEW is self
defeating and will lead to their own disgrace-not mine-so I have NO
REASON TO STOP anything-the cards as they say are FAR more stacked
against them then me because I went INTO it with the integral intention
of simply presenting and defending my view NOT FORCING IT ON A WHOLE
population who choose that as PREFERENCE- while they are here OUT OF
INTEGRITY-it is simple mechanics-so if they wish to "stick" to me until
their own ruin and total discrediting-so be it. Because the bottom line
is-right or wrong, illusion or non, silly or not-WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
BELIEVE WHATEVER WE WISH and are in the proper group to do so. We have a
right to defend or explain or NOT to. We do not HAVE to do anything.
> >> They don't
> >> exist in mine.
> >Well perhaps you are just "better" than me:-)
> Just SOMETIMES you get things right ...........:))
Or maybe I don't run from it?:-)))
> >> 'that's what the tool of astrology is for' is a very strong statement!
> >It is one of the tools-is that what you are crying about? Or are you
> >just trying to challenge me because you are off balance like others that
> >challenge me simply to challenge because their ego is rampant and not
> >look at what I am saying?
> Don't be silly. You know that isn't true.
Everything is questionable.
> >Lancelot; "Aurthur! Your rage has unbalanced you! You would fight to the
> >death over a bridge you can easily go around?
> >Arthur; "Your arrogance bores me! Draw your sword so that I may humble
> >you and your arrogant boasts and with one mighty blow of Excalibur send
> >you into the sea!
> >Lancelot: Your zeal blinds you to the truth! It is not a wild boast
> >sir-but a curse, for I have never been defeated in joust or duel and
> >seek a king worthy of my service as his humble knight."
> :)) OK Lancelot...... but these things need discussing. I enjoy it, for
> God's sake! You would rather I said 'Yes, Ed, yes Ed, three bags full
> Ed!'?
I need no followers. Every moment is a new moment.
> >>- and should you really be getting the client to
> >> believe what YOU believe when there is a possibility you could be wrong?
> >I am not "getting the client" to do anything
> Any astrologer or therapist is in a powerful position. I'm sure you
> realise that and take it into consideration.
I do not allow the client to give me their power. I have 100% of my own
thank you. THEY are creating it, and when they say "thank you" I let
them know in no uncertain terms that it is they who created it (their
version-of course I co-created it with them.....sigh* I have to explain
these things over and over. Oh well I am sure it is of service somehow.)
> >> I honestly don't believe you can do this just by having your horoscope
> >> read! Understanding your unconscious beliefs is a painful and lengthy
> >> experience for many people and redefining them is even harder.
> >It is lifelong, you "can" do anything, and NOTHING HAS to be painful nor
> >lengthy-but if it is use that too. Saying "redefining them is even
> >harder" is a definition YOU create that MAKES it harder.
> Ed - I WATCH it being hard!
It is BELIEVING IS SEEING!!!!!!YOU SEE IT BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT-AND IF
IT IS *NOT* YOURS TO OWN THEN IT WILL N0T AFFECT YOU ANYWAY.
> My definitions are irrelevant.
NOT POSSIBLE! The whole of your horoscope and life is the EFFECT of
definitions. Then you deny the whole of psychology, astrology and
metaphysics in saying that and PROVE you believe you are powerless to
redefine (Mercury square Pluto!)
> I feel the
> client having difficulty.
A feeling is a reaction to a BELIEF!
> I am sympathetic to that difficulty and
> support them through it!
Sympathy is a wasted emotion-all you need is empathy to help someone out
of quicksand-climbing into it with them dooms the both of you.
> Rhetoric does not make problems disappear!
> (although it can buoy someone up briefly :)
OH HERE WE GO AGAIN-please see our interaction of about a year ago!
THE PHILOSOPHY IS *NOT* THE "ICING ON THE CAKE" IT *IS* THE FOUNDATION
OF ALL REALITY AND CREATION-NOT ONLY PERSONALLY BUT COLLECTIVELY-IT IS
NOT JUST A "NICE LITTLE PHILOSOPHY" IT IS THE BASIS FOR ALL EXPERIENCE
BOTH COLLECTIVELY AND PERSONALLY.
> >> Trouble is I am constantly faced with people who desperately need to
> >> grow but do not have the ability to 'know' themselves. Although I
> >> suppose a small step is better than none. Sometimes it's frustrating.
> >But is this YOUR judgment that they "desparately need to grow"?
> Why are they sitting in front of me if they have not discovered that
> there is something wrong with their lives?
They are in front of you as a CO-CREATED EVENT. There is no such thing
as accident only co-INCIDENT TIME TRACKS BASED ON SIMILAR MOMENTUM AND
SHARING.
There is nothing "wrong" with anyones lives-they are their to serve and
be served as are you-it is a sharing, a growing, a mirror to reflect to
each the reasons for the interactions.
> It is not my judgement - I
> just articulate it!
It must be a part of you on some level or you would not be there-you
artiuculate it yes-but they are co-creating it as well. But you must be
careful that you do not climb into the quicksand with these definitions
of "bad" "difficult", "hard" etc.-jumping into quicksand and flailing
about in sympathetic comeraderie is NOT SERVING-remaining in integrity,
finding stable ground, securing the proper ropes etc. and gently guiding
the "victim" to shore IS! Telling them "yes it is quicksand! it is
difficult! It is impossible to get out of it is because I hav e SEEN
IT".... is not.
> > Or
> >theirs? If they have a "desparate need to grow"
Developmental tension that is easily resolved with awareness-not
"desparately"-psychological studies have shown (you should know this)
that people unstressed do not apply themselves as efficiently as those
that do-but go past that point and stress more and the performance
begins to drop off again. The point is we cannot redefine something by
continually reINFORCING it is difficult to change!!!
>in my view then they
> >will-on the other hand if I believe they have a desparate need to grow
> >but they are not-it is more likely to be my JUDGMENT that they need to
> >grow-and they are just fine in the state they are now.
> >It is THEIR PERCEPTION OF STRESS that determines my offering of
> >service-not mine.
> They often just feel bad. They don't know why or how to go about
> feeling better.
Well removing the subjective value judgments is the key-because nothing
is inherently bad or good and reinforcing that it is by feeling "sorry"
for them reinforces that it is.
--
"Cold hearted orb, that rules the night. Removes the colors from our
sight. Red is grey and yellow white. But WE decide which is right-which
is an illusion." The Moody Blues "Nights In White Satin"
"I know and am persuaded by the lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of
itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean." Romans
14:14
"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Hamlet-Shakespeare
Sue Armitage
In article <3448E1...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
>> interesting distractions to get involved in futile discussions.
>
>looks like and I will be here with it consistently proving its idiocy.
>It is conscienceless.
>sigh< Just think of it as a tennis match Ed. If no one returns your
volleys it pretty soon stops being entertaining.
Of course there will be a lot of balls............. :)
Sue
Edmond Wollmann
Sue Armitage wrote:
> In article <3448E1...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> >> Please don't try to engage me in combat as I have far too many
> >> interesting distractions to get involved in futile discussions.
> >Yeah, nice thought anyway this ignoramous will be here for eternity it
> >looks like and I will be here with it consistently proving its idiocy.
> >It is conscienceless.
> >sigh< Just think of it as a tennis match Ed. If no one returns your
> volleys it pretty soon stops being entertaining.
Yes, why don't you tell them that?:-)
> Of course there will be a lot of balls............. :)
Theres already a lot of balls thats why I don't go anywhere.
Sue Armitage
In article <344A39...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> writes
>Sue Armitage wrote:
>
>
>> Yes but I could see them if I wanted to, well most of them. It's not as
>> if they don't exist. Why is this a time track?
>
>Please refer to my gif. The time tracks are very similar-each one "lined
>up" infinitely to the right. Since each would contain very minor
>variations moving from one to the other would simply reflect these minor
>variations. You say "Yes but I could see them if I wanted to, well most
>of them" and whether you do CHOOSE that or not would move you over to a
>NEW time track which would have ITS past present (the seeing them or
>not) and the probable future moving up the y axis through time.
Ok. This is an interesting theory and appeals to my imagination:)
>
>> >> I am just thinking of the bible code which can only be understood in
>> >> retrospect because we have free will and our decisions change what
>> >> happens
>
>I've looked at it and there may be some truth to the predictability, but
>this really does not deny its transformative quality-or free will or
>anything else-IT can simply be an encoded "time track" probability chart
>based on the momentums and understandings at the time it was encoded.
>And if you follow it closely not ALL things are verifyable nor do they
>precisely conform to what "actually" happened (that specific time
>track).
OK. The bible code is another interesting theory that appeals to my
imagination......
>
>> >> if this was encoded by some entity in advance
>
>> >No entity encodes anything in "advance" except you yourself of your own
>> >choices and everything is actually "happening" now, so you are
>> >"actually" choosing it now.
I think this has to show at the very least consensus of choice. But
then I suppose in your time track theory this would fit because there
must always be parallel choices otherwise no one would ever meet!
>
>> The Bible code comes from the original Hebrew text of the bible.
>
>WRITTEN by the persons existent at the time CHOSEN by the HALLWAYS of
>incarnational choice THEN. (pls see my post on the "Hallway A"
>explanations.)
I think this might collate with what I just said above......
>
>> >> If people don't KNOW what they are capable of a lot of
>> >> them will remain unaware.
>
>> >True, thats why I focus on helping them become aware of the fact that
>> >they ARE unlimited, that they ARE infinite, that they ARE
>> >interconnected-RATHER THAN ACTING LIKE THEM AND REINFORCING THAT THEY
>> >AREN'T!!
>
>> Oh........they should (oops!) be more like you :)
>
>No Ms Smart alec, but people don't learn by preaching they learn by
>EXAMPLE.
Oh.......... (how do I draw me biting my tongue :)))
> And I am not responsible FOR anyone only to them by being all
>that I can be IN example-so there is no other answer. To say "oh they
>should be more like you" is simply ego defense for a statement that
>contained no ego to begin with and tells us more of you than me.
Is it impossible for you *ever* to laugh at yourself? I am basically on
your side Ed and you drive me nuts!
>
>
>> I might live next
>> door to Pizza Hut but if I haven't noticed this I won't be buying any
>> Pizzas, will I?
>
>And so all you do is reiterate what I said at the beginning all in one
>statement. That we cannot be anymore interconnected than we are we can
>only increase our AWARENESS of our interconnectedness-now like the
>cynics because of your defensiveness and projection we have spent 3
>posts to come back to what I said from square one! Thank you for serving
>in that way!
Oh, I see. So that's alright then :) We didn't need to have this
argument :) Ummm.......your subjective value judgement is that I am
defensive and projecting something or other..... exhaustion?? Why am I
always wrong? (Although, of course I can't be 'wrong' because that is a
subjective value judgement as well......and you don't make those)
>
>> >> >Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
>
>> >> .....and you will be stuck with them forever.
>
>> >Oh you know that do you? Don't be so sure-no one can be so sure of
>> >anything-I do not know that and you do?
>
>> You said they would be stuck with you forever. If you are stuck to
>> them, they are stuck to you! You are stuck together!
>
>No, I am just different than what they are used to belittling,
YES! You are the best fun they have ever had! And in your own words
this is a co-created event!
> because I
>know what they THINK they know and anything they can present I have
>already thought of. Now because they are so used to the astrologer or
>metaphysical person NOT knowing these things and usually backing off or
>losing track, I can answer anything they can come up with AND show WHY
>they are doing what they are doing. Because they are hardheaded
>Saturnians who fear change-and I am a hardheaded Taurean who NEVER gives
>up or quits when I know I am correct-it will be up to THEM-not me as to
>when their rigidity either acknowledges the role personal motivation
>plays in their defensive attacks or they will simply be exasperated
>because I WILL NEVER AQUIESCE-PERIOD.
Co-created rigidity. Define 'hard headed' and 'never giving up' You
are right and they are wrong - THIS is the sort of behaviour that starts
wars and what are we having is a war. There are other ways of winning
than by spilling blood.
HOW you can look at yourself in the mirror and say 'THEY are rigid and I
am hard headed'I really don't know because I fail to see the difference.
You would rather damage yourself by losing your accounts and web page
than by taking a moderate line and negotiating. I am glad you are not a
General!! This is NOT a strength it is a WEAKNESS and if you can't see
that then you are not the man I thought you were.
> I did not pursue them, they are
>pursuing me.
Because it is fun!
> There is nothing for me to change.
(sigh)
> If I was in their group
>or field trying to force them to do something-I would realize that at
>some point it will be self defeating because I went to THEIR home to try
>to change THEIR reality and that is NOT possible. I could suggest,
>explain, offer different views, but as long as I was in their group (as
>they are in alt.astrology) to seek to down that whole VIEW is self
>defeating and will lead to their own disgrace-not mine-so I have NO
>REASON TO STOP anything-the cards as they say are FAR more stacked
>against them then me because I went INTO it with the integral intention
>of simply presenting and defending my view NOT FORCING IT ON A WHOLE
>population who choose that as PREFERENCE- while they are here OUT OF
>INTEGRITY-it is simple mechanics-so if they wish to "stick" to me until
>their own ruin and total discrediting-so be it.
Oh Ed........... this will not happen. It is you who suffers (and I
doubt this is the first time you being 'right' has caused you some
discomfort) The awful thing is I know I am completely wasting my time
saying this and you will rip me to shreds because of it. I am on your
side but I know you won't see it this way.
> Because the bottom line
>is-right or wrong, illusion or non, silly or not-WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
>BELIEVE WHATEVER WE WISH and are in the proper group to do so. We have a
>right to defend or explain or NOT to. We do not HAVE to do anything.
So stop doing things!
>
>NOT POSSIBLE! The whole of your horoscope and life is the EFFECT of
>definitions. Then you deny the whole of psychology, astrology and
>metaphysics in saying that and PROVE you believe you are powerless to
>redefine (Mercury square Pluto!)
But I am able to look at myself and acknowledge my faults. How do you
avoid acknowledging the rigidity in your horoscope? By saying 'I am
right' and it is called hard headed??
>
>> Rhetoric does not make problems disappear!
>> (although it can buoy someone up briefly :)
>
>OH HERE WE GO AGAIN-please see our interaction of about a year ago!
>THE PHILOSOPHY IS *NOT* THE "ICING ON THE CAKE" IT *IS* THE FOUNDATION
>OF ALL REALITY AND CREATION-NOT ONLY PERSONALLY BUT COLLECTIVELY-IT IS
>NOT JUST A "NICE LITTLE PHILOSOPHY" IT IS THE BASIS FOR ALL EXPERIENCE
>BOTH COLLECTIVELY AND PERSONALLY.
Sorry - but while I watch you behave as you do then that philosophy is a
prop. It is what I thought then and I have had it reinforced a hundred
fold over the last couple of months.
I think I said enough for one day.
Sue
Edmond Wollmann
Sue Armitage wrote:
> In article <344A71...@aznet.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> writes
> >> >> >> >Doing? If you mean the cynics they will be stuck with me forever.
> >> >> >> .....and you will be stuck with them forever.
> >> >> >Oh you know that do you? Don't be so sure-no one can be so sure of
> >> >> >anything-I do not know that and you do?
> >> >> You said they would be stuck with you forever. If you are stuck to
> >> >> them, they are stuck to you! You are stuck together!
> >> >No, I am just different than what they are used to belittling,
> >> YES! You are the best fun they have ever had!
Well if belittling and harrassing someone is what they wish to show the
world and themselves is their idea of fun, how does this hurt me?
>> And in your own words
> >> this is a co-created event!
Yes, and so is the death or injury of someone who tries to help someone
else in danger or something-how does that make the "helper" a part of
the problem?
You guys have forgotten my integrity definitions again now haven't you?
Well I can't post them cause the jealous little crybabies will "tell
mommy" that I am spamming again.
> >Yes, and so what have I done "wrong" by standing my ground, proving my
> >points and not running from their bullshit???
> You could be less entertaining. This does not mean they win.
Even if they "win" and get me thrown off my ISP how does that allow them
to "win"? Thats a loser in my book. You know you are really starting to
piss me off-you and the Satterlees and all the other self righteous
hypocrites-it was the lot of you just recently telling me YOU don't post
here because its a waste of time-and you don't even read them etc. etc.,
so why should all you "way above it all bigtime astrologers" be worrying
all of a sudden WHAT the hell happens here? Now it is syuddenly a big
deal? Astrologers were criticising me for trying to post helpful things
saying it was a waste of time and that I was stupid-now I am stupid for
answering cynics. I don't even know why I answer you either! You
criticised me for posting before and told me to get off and now you come
on and tell me how to do the thing you didn't give a shit about 10
minutes ago! Everyone just wants to tell me SOMETHING to straighten me
out while they themselves are all fucked up.
> They are
> only interested in being annoying - if they annoy you then they have
> won.
Who says they annoy me? I am amazed that they can stoop so low and try
to cancel accounts and then think that people think this is impressive!
It is a joke! It is like that guy in LA that bashed in the truck drivers
head with a brick and then dances around like it was a badge of honor-it
was a badge of IDIOCY-and if they want to wear it-why should I stop
them? Who is hurt in the long run the basher or the bashed?
> There is no point proving astrological points because they do not
> understand it and never will.
But other people reading it DO understand it-even if they don't post and
these idiots don't think others see their stupidity.
> We have something they do not Ed!! If
> you get involved in all the crap it sticks to everything.
It was here when I got here and it has not changed YOU ARE DREAMING-just
because I am replying doesn't make it stay or go-the only difference
with that picture in LA of the guy bashing the head in of the truck
driver WAS the picture-it doesn't mean it doesn't happen anyway it just
means someone SAW it. And sometimes just SEEING it is what is needed.
> >> > because I
> >> >know what they THINK they know and anything they can present I have
> >> >already thought of. Now because they are so used to the astrologer or
> >> >metaphysical person NOT knowing these things and usually backing off or
> >> >losing track, I can answer anything they can come up with AND show WHY
> >> >they are doing what they are doing. Because they are hardheaded
> >> >Saturnians who fear change-and I am a hardheaded Taurean who NEVER gives
> >> >up or quits when I know I am correct-it will be up to THEM-not me as to
> >> >when their rigidity either acknowledges the role personal motivation
> >> >plays in their defensive attacks or they will simply be exasperated
> >> >because I WILL NEVER AQUIESCE-PERIOD.
> >> Co-created rigidity. Define 'hard headed'
> >Is when it is obvious you are not interested in astrology and just come
> >to harrass and belittle because you are an insecure cynic crybaby that
> >can't let others believe what they wish.
> So WHAT! Ignore it or at least be dismissive of it! We have a
> wonderful thing that we KNOW works. There is no need to be pulled down
> by these people - rise above it!!
You are just a chicken shit like everyone else. Why do you blame me for
their stupidity? I guess you blame the bank when it gets robbed too? If
we didn't attack both problems-building up the banks security AND
rounding up the criminals IT ISN'T GOING TO STOP!! You are right there
in England! I would fucking WALK over to demon uk and DEMAND they stop
the shit with this Sherilyn!!! I would protest outside the fucking
office and MAKE them stop the shit! But then I have BALLS!!!!!
> >> and 'never giving up'
> >Is when someone breaks into your house and ties you up and starts raping
> >your wife and because you don't give a shit about your own welfare you
> >break loose and do anything in your power to defeat the attacker -even
> >at the cost of your life!!!!!!
> >Now do you see the difference between being in integrity?
> I have to say that the similarity between the two scenarios is not
> immediately obvious. Are you seriously saying that squabbling with
> skeptics in a newsgroup is on a par with your wife being raped????
If you don't want to defend anything just say so. You are obviously just
as bankrupt as your demon uk cohorts. You secured your fate in my mind.
You are free to hide behind your weak philosophies and rational all you
want. I don't prefer it. Why even define integrity? Or make laws? Or
worry about "spiritual evolvement?" Why wipe everytime you go to the
bathroom? You are just going to go again. This kind of powerless
perspective is why people watch people get stabbed from their windows in
New York while the person screams for help down below. All because they
"don't ewant to get involved" and jeapordize their little secure
world-all the while the criminals are more organized and work together.
Which ensures when they are walking home some night the same "fate"
having been created by them, befalls them.
If anyone of you would have made HALF the fucking effort you have made
trying to tell me how fucked up I am in complaining properly to these
persons ISPs and working together to figure out how to stop this
invasion crap-or just have supported metapsych-none of them would even
be here for this conversation to continue.
Good day.
Sue Armitage
In article <EerOGBAz...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>...
>In fairness, I think it's as well to point out that if Edmond didn't
>provide such an interesting sideshow there would be a lot more
>discussion of the validity of astrology going on--and I think Edmond is
>well aware of this and suspects he wouldn't like that one bit
You are wrong. He is a first class astrologer and very sincere. My
point is that there is no reason for engaging you in discussion as we
are never likely to agree. You have made your mind up - which is fine.
I have made mine up and this is fine too. If you are indifferent to
astrology as you say you are then we don't have anything to argue about.
>
>but dissident ideas (such as my bit of Mornington Crescent agitprop)
As a matter of interest, why have I heard of Mornington Crescent?
Sue
Sherilyn
In article <$uK1BDA9...@denys.demon.co.uk>, Sue Armitage
<s...@denys.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <EerOGBAz...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>...
>>In fairness, I think it's as well to point out that if Edmond didn't
>>provide such an interesting sideshow there would be a lot more
>>discussion of the validity of astrology going on--and I think Edmond is
>>well aware of this and suspects he wouldn't like that one bit
>
>You are wrong. He is a first class astrologer and very sincere.
I don't doubt that, in terms of astrology, he is as competent as they
come. But I don't see that it alters my strong perception that he is
very uneasy with the idea of people discussing the validity of astrology
in alt.astrology.
> My
>point is that there is no reason for engaging you in discussion as we
>are never likely to agree. You have made your mind up - which is fine.
>I have made mine up and this is fine too. If you are indifferent to
>astrology as you say you are then we don't have anything to argue about.
No problem.
>>
>>but dissident ideas (such as my bit of Mornington Crescent agitprop)
>
>As a matter of interest, why have I heard of Mornington Crescent?
Good news gets around. ;)
Seriously (if that is the right word)
http://aurora.york.ac.uk/mc_em.html
Check out this excellent resources page:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d51vmk/mc_resources.html
with an honorable mention to:
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~dma/ProfX/
--
Sherilyn|Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Brant Watson
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:38:33 +0100, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>No problem. It would be difficult to have a meaningful conversation
>with someone so eager to caricature my position rather than to explore
>it, so quick to score points, and so slow to understand.
Yes, it seems that those who would be so quick to judge your system
are out of integrity and know 0 about it.
Brant
Schmidt Cassegrain
Sue Armitage wrote:
> As a matter of interest, why have I heard of Mornington Crescent?
Perhaps because you listen to BBC Radio 4 on Saturday afternoons?
Schmidt