House Division?
Dimitris
I'm looking for info on the different House Division systems
(Placidus,Koch, etc.), their theoretical basis, practical application etc.
, so if anyone has a book, article or web page to recommend, I would
appreciate it. All insights welcome!
Thanx,
Luv-u-lite Dimitris
Curtis Manwaring
See this article by Rob Schmidt!!!
http://projhind.com/schmidta.htm
He is the Greek translator for Project Hindsight and is extremely well
versed on Platonic & Aristotelian Philosophy (also Kant, Heidegger,
Descartes and others) Mathematics and Physics. He asserts that the
controversy over house boundaries is the result of philosophical
misunderstanding and a bad translation of Ptolemy. In it he explains the
difference between topic houses (topos) and dynamical divisions related to
planetary strength.
Sincerely,
Curt Manwaring
Dimitris <gp...@groovy.gr> wrote in article
<01bc19b0$0bef4560$6ce41ec2@default>...
Kevin Burk
Dimitris wrote:
>
> I'm looking for info on the different House Division systems
> (Placidus,Koch, etc.), their theoretical basis, practical application etc.
> , so if anyone has a book, article or web page to recommend, I would
> appreciate it. All insights welcome!
> Thanx,
> Luv-u-lite Dimitris
Dimitris,
I recently covered some of this information in an "Ask Kevin" question;
it may not be as detailed as you're looking for, but it does go into the
different types of house system, and talk briefly about the different
methods of calculation. You can check it out at
http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/~kburk - go to the "Ask Kevin" section,
and browse the archives.
Peace,
Kevin
--
*****************************************************************
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
*****************************************************************
Seed of Life
"Dimitris " <gp...@groovy.gr> writes: > I'm looking for info on the different House Division systems
> (Placidus,Koch, etc.), their theoretical basis, practical application etc.
> , so if anyone has a book, article or web page to recommend, I would
> appreciate it. All insights welcome!
> Thanx,
> Luv-u-lite Dimitris
>
It is based on equal divisions of the sky above where a person
is born. Where the house cusps cross the ecliptic is where they
are given a degree in a sign. Like most house systems the more
north you go, the more the house sizes vary in relation to each
other.
Using this system changed some cusp signs of some friends who
were using the Koch system. The changes made more sense to
everyone.
Siderealm
JoyceGD
based only on personal experience and confirmed by something steve arroyo
wrote somewhere if you have something falling in one house in one system
and in another house in another system (e.g., i have nep in 7th placidus
and 8th in koch)
just treat it like its in both. this works for me.
hope this is helpful
PEACE
lili
Robert Roosen
You might try "Tools of Astrology--Houses," by Dona Marie Lorenz from the
Eomega Grove Press.
Robert
Derek Parker
Isn't the real point that it's absurd to use a system which won't
work in some latitudes - i.e., the extreme north?
Derek.
Crystal Pages
Derek Parker <parke...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
I thought houses that far up north are called 'Igloos' <G>!
--
Crystal Pages (Vedic Astrology and Reiki)
P.O.B. 33035, 1974 Baseline Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K2C 3Y9
URL:http://www.cyberus.ca/~crystar/
Siderealm
Thank you Derek. Kind of puts things in perspective doesn't it.
>Isn't the real point that it's absurd to use a system which won't
>work in some latitudes - i.e., the extreme north?
>Derek.
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
*...
I guess I missed it- Would
someone repost wihich system
you are referring to and which
latitudes it doesn't work in?
Thanks!
Rose:)
Jon Dunn
Why I advocate the seldom-seen RA/equatorial meridian system (though not
enthusiastically):
At the equator, the visible cycle of the planets is that they rise in the
east, culminate overhead, and then set in the west (more or less). Most
house systems used at the equator reflect this pretty well - the MC is
pretty much square the ASC and the other cusps tend to fall at equal
divisions.
At the north pole, the visible cycle of the planets is that they stay at a
particular angle above the horizon and circle around you, like planes
waiting to land. In 24 hours, the relationship of a given planet to the
horizon changes very little. Every actual location will be somewhat off of
the actual pole, and then the daily cycle of each planet is that is
slightly higher at one point and then closest to the horizon 12 hours
later.
In both cases, what the observer notices is that each planet travels
around in a little circle parallel to the equator. If we project all
planets & points onto the equator (using RA instead of ecliptical
longitude), this measures the daily motion of planets the most relevantly.
Additionally, if we use the RAMC as the 10th house cusp, then the planet
truly culminates, or veers closest to the zenith overhead, when it crosses
this point.
So, that's it: use RA for each planet, and then equal houses from the RAMC
as 10th cusp. A planet moves through each of these houses in almost
EXACTLY 2 hours each, crossing into the first house 6 hours before
culmination.
This system ignores the horizon, which is the factor which causes house
systems to fail at different latitudes. The problem, of course, is that
the horizon (and ascendant) are seen by most to be especially
important....
So, I often think in terms of two different charts - the conventional
equal house system and the above equatorial/equal system.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
Jon Dunn
R V,
Well, it was great to read your post saying that you had used this
differentiation for many years with success.
One way to visualize the Equatorial version is that by changing only one
word or concept in the definition of the conventional equal house system,
the other is derived. You may have discovered this - it comes from the
fact that the ASC can be thought of as "the forward square from the
zenith's ecliptical longitude". So, here is one way to define the
conventional equal house system:
1) project all planets onto the ecliptic plane.
2) project the zenith onto the ecliptic plane and define this as the cusp
of house 10.
That's it - one need not bring the horizon into it explicitly. All I need
to do is copy the above and change "ecliptic to equator"...
1) project all planets onto the equator plane.
2) project the zenith onto the equator plane and define this as the cusp
of house 10.
...and we have defined the other (RA) chart.
This suggests how "un-artificial" the use of both charts together is.
Thanks.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
William Roberts
than the end for which these are but a means. If I use a system to
arrive at an awareness and you use another and arrive at the same
awareness, is this not, "Many paths, same truth"?
Jon Dunn
On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, William Roberts wrote:
> We all seem to discourse about systems as if they were more important
> than the end for which these are but a means. If I use a system to
> arrive at an awareness and you use another and arrive at the same
> awareness, is this not, "Many paths, same truth"?
And of course, this refers to tea-leaves, I Ching, etc. (which I have
consulted on occasion). Astrology is something specific - not merely the
attempted "path" to "awareness", but the use and refinement of ways of
finding a sensible analogy between various aspects of astronomy and
various aspects of personality. So, hashing over something like
house-systems is only a waste of time if doing astrology in the first
place is. And there would be many intuitives and tarot readers who might
say (right along with the hard-line skeptics) it is an unnecessarily
technical waste of time...
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
Risto Vartiainen
On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:27:37 -0800, Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org>
wrote:
>Why I advocate the seldom-seen RA/equatorial meridian system (though not
>enthusiastically):
>
>
>So, that's it: use RA for each planet, and then equal houses from the RAMC
>as 10th cusp. A planet moves through each of these houses in almost
>EXACTLY 2 hours each, crossing into the first house 6 hours before
>culmination.
>
>This system ignores the horizon, which is the factor which causes house
>systems to fail at different latitudes. The problem, of course, is that
>the horizon (and ascendant) are seen by most to be especially
>important....
>
>So, I often think in terms of two different charts - the conventional
>equal house system and the above equatorial/equal system.
Again, Jon -- I must concur with you. I implemented this -- what I
call the Equatorial Ascendant or EA Houses (or "true Meridian houses")
-- in my little astrological computer program years ago. (I still use
the program in my daily work.). Meridian system of houses, known also
as Zariel system and used by the Uranian astrologers, locates these
equal equatorial slices on the ecliptic, so it is just an
approximation of this true equatorial view. I have worked a lot with
this system along with the Equal / Sign houses.
I can say this after almost 20 years of research into this issue of
houses: I have tested about the dozen more often used systems here at
near polar latitudes and I must say that I will never, never go back
using any house system that employs AS as the first cusp and MC as the
10the cusp at the same time. There really is no point using a house
system that gives houses maybe only a couple of degrees *or* 100+
degrees wide. Koch, Campanus, Alcabitius are all of fundamentally same
value here, sharing this same probem. Better construct two separate
charts: one for MC, or Meridian cusps (one can plot it directly on the
Equator in R.A. as you suggested), the other chart could depict the
same moment with Equal or Sign=House system. These charts give
complementary views on the person or situation.
Using Meridian system one can still insert the AS within the chart,
and using the AS / Equal system one can still insert the MC. **These
points are not lost.** One can then look at these points and find
fresh meanings in them, because they do not have to be associated with
limited meanings of house cusps. -- For instance, I have realized
that MC is not just about the career or public side of a person.
Instead, I more loosely associate it with the vertical structure of
life; important life decisions, goals, future developments, direction
of the conscious ego etc.
I have felt for a long time that so-called house position of a planet
could be derived most simply from its angular relationship to a
significant starting point, like the AS or Equatorial Ascendant (RAMC
+90). Thus, a planet may be in a quincunx aspect to AS while trining
the Eq AS. This planet would be on the 6th cusp in the AS system and
on the 5th cusp in the Equatorial AS system. So, from one point of
view one may feel and interpret this planet as a 5th house planet and
from another point of view as a 6th house body. The differences of
these points of view are determined by the differences between the
astrological meanings of AS and MC, or more generally by the separate
significances of the Meridian / Equator and AS / Ecliptic
combinations. By the way, I think here is the key to the problem on
why astrologers differ in their opinions on house systems. But also,
they let the needless complexity of quadrant systems fool them...
Furthermore, I have a vague intuition that Equal / Sign Houses are
somehow most closely associated with the ecliptic and should be
constructed and used on that plane. MC / Meridian houses are best
associated with the Equator and ask for planets to be calculated in
Right Ascension. (Maybe Antivertex / Vertex system links planets
most closely with the plane of the Horizon, and when using the
Antivertex as the 1st cusp the planets should be plotted in Azimuth
or, along the Prime Vertcal near Equatorial latitudes.)
One can also build house systems, as in Uranian astrology, on the
interpretational basis of the Sun or the Moon (Sun and Moon Houses) or
even letting the degree or the sign of the Sun to determine the first
house (Solar Houses of Sun-Sign astrology), which system can also give
meaningful information even if the actual time of birth is known. One
only has to remember what the starting point is and form the
interpretation from that basis.
- Risto Vartiianen -
Michael Erlewine
William Roberts <Astrologe...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> We all seem to discourse about systems as if they were more important
> than the end for which these are but a means. If I use a system to
> arrive at an awareness and you use another and arrive at the same
> awareness, is this not, "Many paths, same truth"?
I agree with what William Roberts writes. People seem to forget that
astrology is not a science and that its chief purpose is not prediction,
but awareness. Astrology is, in essence, an oracle and, like all oracles,
the ritual or means to contact that oracle is where astrologers differ and
find their differences. I have had the good fortune to meet many well-known
astrologers in my 30+ years of working with astrology, people like John
Addey, Dane Rudhyar, Noel Tyl, Michel Gauquelin, Charles Jayne and hundreds
of others.
Astrologers love to tell each other about the techniques they use. What was
at first hard for me to accept when meeting these astrologers was the fact
that each of them had their own particular techniques to 'do' astrology. In
the beginning, I tried to make them all relate to how I did astrology, but
these attempts soon fell before the fact that these diverse technques could
never be reconciled.
In brief, astrological techniques are the residue of insight into
ourselves, the remains of 'aha!' experiences. As William Roberts points
out so well above, astrological techniques (house systems or otherwise) are
the means to achieve the end of astrological inquiry. And that end is, in
my opinion, an awareness of our life, self, and how to best use it.
Because astrology is not a science, there is no one 'correct' house system.
There are many systems and they each provide a somewhat (or very) different
view. Which view(s) are useful for each of us is (as said above) where
astrologers differ and agree to find their differences.
Thanks.
Michael Erlewine
Matrix Software/AMG (web site: TheNewAge.com)
Edmond Wollmann
Jon Dunn wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, William Roberts wrote:
> > We all seem to discourse about systems as if they were more important
> > than the end for which these are but a means. If I use a system to
> > arrive at an awareness and you use another and arrive at the same
> > awareness, is this not, "Many paths, same truth"?
> consulted on occasion). Astrology is something specific - not merely the
> attempted "path" to "awareness", but the use and refinement of ways of
> finding a sensible analogy between various aspects of astronomy and
> various aspects of personality. So, hashing over something like
> house-systems is only a waste of time if doing astrology in the first
> place is. And there would be many intuitives and tarot readers who might
> say (right along with the hard-line skeptics) it is an unnecessarily
> technical waste of time...
If astrology is not a tool to awareness what is it? You assume of course
that THERE ARE some hard and fast scientific "rules" to define
identity-you are in for dramatic disillusionment if this is your desired
path of astrological justifications, and perhaps is a good indicator of
little experience with clientel-for experience alone would show you this
is not the truth. This is the effect of your rigid perspective in cause
and effect which strangles human nature, implies determinism and in
itself is a waste of time. For it allows not for human growth,
subjective reality as valid, and insight and truth as liberators of
conscious focus.
This-of course is your truth Jon, and is not written in the "stone of
the multiverse". Proceeding with this perspective leads to dead ends.
Science and intution are GUIDES to living the human experience-there are
no hard and fast rules-and those who zealously pursue either end of the
spectrum blind themselves to larger truths (pls see my posts on
intuition vs intellect, discernment vs projection, positive and negative
energy, metaphysics..etc). Pls don't consider this a flaming-it is an
empathic recognition from experiencing myself and assisting others in
the harmonious resolution of conflictive and paradoxical life truths-
Saturnian restrictive judgements of "right and wrong"-"good and bad"-no
matter how sophisticated will never liberate-they constrain.
Best to you in YOUR search for this truth. If they work for someone,
improve their quality of life, enhance THEIR awareness, add to their
experience of reality, allow them insight through the "mandalic"
experience-they are true-period. They don't work for you because they
are not true for you. It has NOTHING to do with tea leaves.
--
"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.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Edmond Wollmann
Michael Erlewine wrote:
Bravo Michael! Very well said indeed.
> William Roberts <Astrologe...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > We all seem to discourse about systems as if they were more important
> > than the end for which these are but a means. If I use a system to
> > arrive at an awareness and you use another and arrive at the same
> > awareness, is this not, "Many paths, same truth"?
Michael wrote;
--
"Those who are unspiritual, do not receive the gift of God's spirit, for
they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them
because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern
all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny.
For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?
1 Corinthians 2:14
Jon Dunn
On 24 Feb 1997, Michael Erlewine wrote:
> I agree with what William Roberts writes. People seem to forget that
> astrology is not a science and that its chief purpose is not prediction,
> but awareness. Astrology is, in essence, an oracle and, like all oracles,
> the ritual or means to contact that oracle is where astrologers differ and
> find their differences.
> ...
Personally, what I'm looking for in astrology is something different (I
hesitate slightly to say "more") than what any other (presumably
effective) oracle offers - something tangible and systemic, something
which TEACHES ME about "as above, so below" in a way which will make an
indelible mark on my unconscious, which will (continue to) hit me in the
literal part of my mind, which will take it above the mere experience of
seasons, planets, etc and RELATE THESE UNDENYABLE realities to history and
personality in an UNDENYABLE way. This is the lure of astrology over other
things, and also the lure of hashing over the particular conceptual (and
practical) implications of different house systems. Thanks.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
Jon Dunn
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Jon Dunn wrote:
> > And of course, this refers to tea-leaves, I Ching, etc. (which I have
> > consulted on occasion). Astrology is something specific - not merely the
> > attempted "path" to "awareness", but the use and refinement of ways of
> > finding a sensible analogy between various aspects of astronomy and
> > various aspects of personality. So, hashing over something like
> > house-systems is only a waste of time if doing astrology in the first
> > place is. And there would be many intuitives and tarot readers who might
> > say (right along with the hard-line skeptics) it is an unnecessarily
> > technical waste of time...
>
> If astrology is not a tool to awareness what is it?
"Tool to awareness" is of course a rather broad category. You will note I
did not say it was NOT that.
> You assume of course
> that THERE ARE some hard and fast scientific "rules" to define
> identity-
I don't recognize this characterization in what I said.
> you are in for dramatic disillusionment if this is your desired
> path of astrological justifications,
Thanks for the advice.
> and perhaps is a good indicator of
> little experience with clientel-for experience alone would show you this
> is not the truth.
Oh, dear. The philisophies of people who have worked with clientel vary
quite a bit - into the region of much more rigid than you think I am -
and poking your head out of your limited inbred life and philosophy alone
would show you this is the truth.
> This is the effect of your rigid perspective in cause
> and effect which strangles human nature, implies determinism and in
> itself is a waste of time.
I won't interpret that as a flame, because you are so very wise and are
just trying to help.
> For it allows not for human growth,
> subjective reality as valid, and insight and truth as liberators of
> conscious focus.
I have never been satisfied that your characterizations of my "deteminism"
reflected my actual positions, or their implications.
> This-of course is your truth Jon, and is not written in the "stone of
> the multiverse".
Of course not. But here is an example of something which would appear to
be written in the "stone of the multiverse":
"THIS IS THE EFFECT OF YOUR RIGID PERSPECTIVE IN CAUSE AND EFFECT WHICH
STRANGLES HUMAN NATURE, IMPLIES DETERMINISM AND IN ITSELF IS A WASTE OF
TIME."
> Proceeding with this perspective leads to dead ends.
You should know - you've been there, done that, seen it all...
> Science and intution are GUIDES to living the human experience-there are
> no hard and fast rules-and those who zealously pursue either end of the
> spectrum blind themselves to larger truths (pls see my posts on
> intuition vs intellect, discernment vs projection, positive and negative
> energy, metaphysics..etc).
I'm not sure I would argue, or that what you said is relevant to what I
said...
> Pls don't consider this a flaming-it is an
> empathic recognition from experiencing myself and assisting others in
> the harmonious resolution of conflictive and paradoxical life truths-
> Saturnian restrictive judgements of "right and wrong"-"good and bad"-no
> matter how sophisticated will never liberate-they constrain.
Moderation is the key - a judicious blending of "liberation" and
"constraint", and whomsoever doesn't understand that is an extremist of
some sort. So say I.
> Best to you in YOUR search for this truth.
The operative word here is "this" - not "best to you in YOUR search for
TRUTH" but "...in your search for THIS truth" - i.e. the wisdom which you
have attempted to hand down to me today. Gee, thanks.
> If they work for someone,
> improve their quality of life, enhance THEIR awareness, add to their
> experience of reality, allow them insight through the "mandalic"
> experience-they are true-period.
Not my definition of true, but I wouldn't necessarily argue. Of course,
the fact that YOU WOULD (argue with me that the above is the ONLY
definition of truth) makes me think of you as irrational, or at least
someone not to harbor any delusions could be engaged in an intelligent
debate over these things...
> They don't work for you because they
> are not true for you. It has NOTHING to do with tea leaves.
Uh, whatever.
> "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"
This wavers dangerously close to the "Neptunian" approach - letting things
take their course - and would seem to threaten your usual "Uranian" mania
- that all things are chosen and put in place by one's own monadic will.
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
I may do my usual with you and let you have the last word. Again, if I
don't respond to your response to this, don't you go thinking I agree or
don't have objections or responses. Thanks.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
Michael Erlewine
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.93.97022...@eve.speakeasy.org>...
> On 24 Feb 1997, Michael Erlewine wrote:
>
> > I agree with what William Roberts writes. People seem to forget that
> > astrology is not a science and that its chief purpose is not
prediction,
> > but awareness. Astrology is, in essence, an oracle and, like all
oracles,
> > the ritual or means to contact that oracle is where astrologers differ
and
> > find their differences.
> > ...
>
> Personally, what I'm looking for in astrology is something different (I
> hesitate slightly to say "more") than what any other (presumably
> effective) oracle offers - something tangible and systemic, something
> which TEACHES ME about "as above, so below" in a way which will make an
> indelible mark on my unconscious, which will (continue to) hit me in the
> literal part of my mind, which will take it above the mere experience of
> seasons, planets, etc and RELATE THESE UNDENYABLE realities to history
and
> personality in an UNDENYABLE way. This is the lure of astrology over
other
> things, and also the lure of hashing over the particular conceptual (and
> practical) implications of different house systems. Thanks.
>
I sent this earlier, but it did not appear, so forgive this if there are
two similar posts.
It is my experience that astrology is an oracle and that astrology and
oracles are not mutually exclusive, by any means. Astrology can have any
degree of complexity required to please the practitioner and still be an
oracle. An oracle is not somehow a lesser 'thing' than doing astrology In
fact, if astrology were a more successful oracle than it seems to be for
more of us, we probably would use less techniques. Techniques that do not
result in our contacting the oracular part of astrology, the part that sees
into ourselves, are usually abandoned after a short while.
My rule of thumb is that I want my astrological techniques to work FOR me,
and not vice versa.
Let's' face it, astrology is not for everyone. It is not every person who
wants to chart and measure their way across this web of life, calculation
handhold by handhold. Sometimes I feel that astrology is (for me) just an
endless rosary or mala upon which I count the beads of my lifetime, my own
kind of worry beads. Part of me likes to do all of this measurement and
calculation.
And I am not a technophobe, for those who may not know me. I am very
technical indeed and have spent years as a systems programmer, etc. The
following story may help to communicate my view on all of this:
I can remember well an intense conversation I had with my friend and U.K.
astrologer Charles Harvey back in the mid-1970s. Charles described for me,
in excruciating detail, the entire process he went through in preparing a
chart for a client. He was a Cosmobiologist and It took him five to six
hours of careful, painstaking work to get ready. Charles was very thorough.
I compared this to the time it took me, about (maybe) half an hour. I like
to draw out the chart patterns of the chart using colored pencils, but that
is about it. I am ready after that.
It is clear to me that each astrologer has a particular ritual they go
through to get into the subject enough to see with any clarity. I see
little difference in nature between this sort of thing and the ritual I use
to throw the yarrow stalks to cast a hexagram for the I-Ching. They have
the same end, getting in touch with the oracle within me. Once that oracle
is touched, once I can see beyond my normal obscurations, I am doing
astrology.
I can see where we can all have different opinions about this sort of
thing.
Thanks.
Michael Erlewine
Matrix Software/AMG (web site at TheNewAge.com)
Crystal Pages
Is this somewhat similar to Bill Tucker's zenith system (or was it east-point system) that was popular in the
60s?
Ranjan
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>Why I advocate the seldom-seen RA/equatorial meridian system (though not
>enthusiastically):
>At the equator, the visible cycle of the planets is that they rise in the
>east, culminate overhead, and then set in the west (more or less). Most
>house systems used at the equator reflect this pretty well - the MC is
>pretty much square the ASC and the other cusps tend to fall at equal
>divisions.
>At the north pole, the visible cycle of the planets is that they stay at a
>particular angle above the horizon and circle around you, like planes
>waiting to land. In 24 hours, the relationship of a given planet to the
>horizon changes very little. Every actual location will be somewhat off of
>the actual pole, and then the daily cycle of each planet is that is
>slightly higher at one point and then closest to the horizon 12 hours
>later.
>In both cases, what the observer notices is that each planet travels
>around in a little circle parallel to the equator. If we project all
>planets & points onto the equator (using RA instead of ecliptical
>longitude), this measures the daily motion of planets the most relevantly.
>Additionally, if we use the RAMC as the 10th house cusp, then the planet
>truly culminates, or veers closest to the zenith overhead, when it crosses
>this point.
>So, that's it: use RA for each planet, and then equal houses from the RAMC
>as 10th cusp. A planet moves through each of these houses in almost
>EXACTLY 2 hours each, crossing into the first house 6 hours before
>culmination.
>This system ignores the horizon, which is the factor which causes house
>systems to fail at different latitudes. The problem, of course, is that
>the horizon (and ascendant) are seen by most to be especially
>important....
>So, I often think in terms of two different charts - the conventional
>equal house system and the above equatorial/equal system.
>
>******************************************************************************
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
>******************************************************************************
Crystal Pages
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 24 Feb 1997, Michael Erlewine wrote:
>> I agree with what William Roberts writes. People seem to forget that
>> astrology is not a science and that its chief purpose is not prediction,
>> but awareness. Astrology is, in essence, an oracle and, like all oracles,
>> the ritual or means to contact that oracle is where astrologers differ and
>> find their differences.
>> ...
>Personally, what I'm looking for in astrology is something different (I
>hesitate slightly to say "more") than what any other (presumably
>effective) oracle offers - something tangible and systemic, something
>which TEACHES ME about "as above, so below" in a way which will make an
>indelible mark on my unconscious, which will (continue to) hit me in the
>literal part of my mind, which will take it above the mere experience of
>seasons, planets, etc and RELATE THESE UNDENYABLE realities to history and
>personality in an UNDENYABLE way. This is the lure of astrology over other
>things, and also the lure of hashing over the particular conceptual (and
>practical) implications of different house systems. Thanks.
>
>******************************************************************************
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
>******************************************************************************
Being a descriptive language (is there any other kind <G>?), astrology casts a wide net. What would science be
without language? Just as any language can contain and give expression to science, so can astrology, if it is
used to describe it. Astrology basically describes all human experience (even the inanimate experiences that
affect humans, such as the weather, the earthquakes, the stock market etc.). Those that use astrology
(astrolinguists aka astrologers) have used it in many ways, just as those who have used english (or any other
language!) have used it in many ways, to write dry prose, to write inspired poetry, to describe a scientific
experiment, to write a term paper, etc. It is not english that is limited in its expression, it is the one who
writes or speaks it that determines the limits of expression or the forms and styles of expression.
It is therefore futile, IMO, to restrain or limit the reaches of astrology as a descriptive language to this
or that purpose. The limits and limitations are really ours! The utility of astrology spans from the earthy to
that which is sublime! And, not all of these can be attained successfully by any one individual!
Ranjan
Jon Dunn
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Crystal Pages wrote:
> Is this somewhat similar to Bill Tucker's zenith system (or was it east-point system) that was popular in the
> 60s?
>
> Ranjan
There are times I really do wish I'd held onto the book "Systems of House
Divison" or whatever it was called. I cannot say what the "zenith system"
or "east-point" systems are, so cannot answer. Sorry. Maybe someone else
will have this.
Jon Dunn
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Michael Erlewine wrote:
> ...
> My point is that each of us did the ritual necessary to get in touch with
> and to create a body of knowledge that we called astrology. I see no
> essential difference between this and when I used to cast the yarrow stalks
> to create an I-Ching hexagram.
> ...
Thank you very much for you sharing.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
Jon Dunn
Ranjan wrote:
Being a descriptive language (is there any other kind <G>?), astrology
casts a wide net. What would science be without language? Just as any
language can contain and give expression to science, so can astrology, if
it is used to describe it. Astrology basically describes all human
experience (even the inanimate experiences that affect humans, such as the
weather, the earthquakes, the stock market etc.). Those that use astrology
(astrolinguists aka astrologers) have used it in many ways, just as those
who have used english (or any other language!) have used it in many ways,
to write dry prose, to write inspired poetry, to describe a scientific
experiment, to write a term paper, etc. It is not english that is limited
in its expression, it is the one who writes or speaks it that determines
the limits of expression or the forms and styles of expression.
It is therefore futile, IMO, to restrain or limit the reaches of astrology
as a descriptive language to this or that purpose. The limits and
limitations are really ours! The utility of astrology spans from the
earthy to that which is sublime! And, not all of these can be attained
successfully by any one individual!
(I reformatted that so I could read it better. Thanks for your thoughts.)
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
******************************************************************************
Earl Baker
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.97022...@eve.speakeasy.org>,
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Crystal Pages wrote:
>
>> Is this somewhat similar to Bill Tucker's zenith system (or was it east-point system) that was popular in the
>> 60s?
>>
>> Ranjan
>
>There are times I really do wish I'd held onto the book "Systems of House
>Divison" or whatever it was called. I cannot say what the "zenith system"
>or "east-point" systems are, so cannot answer. Sorry. Maybe someone else
>will have this.
References I've seen to the Zenith system state that it is an
equal house system, houses measured from the ASC.
--
__________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
Edmond Wollmann
Jon Dunn wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > If astrology is not a tool to awareness what is it?
> "Tool to awareness" is of course a rather broad category. You will note I
> did not say it was NOT that.
Each person is going to garner what they do from the mandalic experience
what is true for them. I find it difficult to understand your need to
get so defensive. Since we each create our reality through the
definitions and perspective we hold-the astuteness of the astrologer is
intimately caught up in the co-created event of chart interpretation. If
you are analysing your own, then your own system of beliefs is what will
register and transform your consciousness in the ways it needs to-or you
need it to. I read some of your other respoonses and your expression
that you wished to find something more-something that will impress your
consciousness-that is what we all do-the thing is that it is a PERSONAL
creation and will be different for each person. It is not something that
will impress EACH consciousness in the same way, because each individual
creates their VERSION of whatever the mandala triggers for them-they are
all real and all valid and cannot be categorized and formatted to mean
the same thing to each-because the consciousness of the observer is the
co-creating element. It is not outside of us and this is why astrology
is an ARCHETYPAL TRIGGER that leads to awareness and understanding and
insight-not a cookbook that TELLS anyone what is. Some are more accurate
in sensing consciousness with helio, sidereal, or with any number of
houses-even divisions are arbitrary-it is a co-created event.
The truth is WE NEED NO CHART to know the things we can know WITH
one-it is a tool and a crutch-it depends once again on the consciousness
of the observer.
> Moderation is the key - a judicious blending of "liberation" and
> "constraint", and whomsoever doesn't understand that is an extremist of
> some sort. So say I.
First it must be questioned whether your perceptions define through
discernment some belief structure independent of your own. This is a
subjective value judgment on your part and if allowed-tells us more of
your state than mine-but since you are so defensive toward anything I
say it is doubtful this can be of service-you are stuck on this
extremist thing- because you cannot move beyond the idea that there is
some inherent meaning in the multiverse-can you not recognize that what
is extreme to one is mediocre to another? Extremist according to what?
It is the intention and the expression of negative or positive energy
that is the crux-not the level-Einstein was an extremist-constraint can
be negative guilt or positive wisdom-there is no "thats the way it is".
These things are only "dangerous" to a perspective that fears (believes)
this to be dangerous. Please define this universal yardstick that you
use to measure whether I am this or that.
> This wavers dangerously close to the "Neptunian" approach - letting things
> take their course - and would seem to threaten your usual "Uranian" mania
> - that all things are chosen and put in place by one's own monadic will.
If you cannot see the paranoic defense in the above-and judgment-I am
sorry for you. I will refrain from responding to anymore of your posts.
> I may do my usual with you and let you have the last word.
My, my, how big of you.
--
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
Siderealm
Jon Dunn I am beginning to believe that you are a Chameleon. You argued
ferociously for the Equal house system a month or more ago when I brought
this thread up when I explained the Uranian system's use of Meridian,
Equal, Nodal Sun, Nodal Moon, Sun, and Moon Houses. You snipped my
comments as being ramblings. Then a week ago you responded again taking
issue with my suggestion of Porphyry as an alternative for people who are
in polar latitudes, saying that you could not support anything but Equal
or Campanus because you perceived a consistency of generation in those
systems that was lacking in other systems. And today you are again coming
around to the Meridian and Equal house systems and making vague
references to all of the information in my post to you regarding the other
four systems used by Uranian astrologers without citations as to where
the information came from.
I guess what I am trying to say here is that when you make monthly
changes of opinions regarding the subjects here, that it would be more
helpful to your readers to cite your sources and references in the
professional manner and remember that we all stand upon the shoulders of
giants and are at the same time linking arms. Footnotes, references, and
citations are the way in which we allow others to follow the Great
Conversation of the Ages. This is the basic technique of scholarship.
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
Seed of Life
There has been talk that the zenith is important for house divisions.
Yet it seems to me that the "horizon" is much more important because
it truly demarcates a boundary. A boundary between the earth and
the sky. The zenith doesn't seem to demarcate any boundary.
I think most people have a connection with their ascendant more
than with their midheaven. So it seems that any house system must
first start with the ascendant/descendant demarcation. And then
build from there. Whether or not the zenith is 90 degrees from the
ascendant all the time is the question here.
Moreover, any house system that represents the specific place
where one is born is desirable.
Ed Lambert
Siderealm
I think we are making this discussion of the Meridian system much more
complicated than it really is. As an ancient pre-computer astrologer I
remember that Meridian houses were created by the process of adding two
hours to the Midheaven Sidereal Time (another antiquated term from the pre
computer days) for the succeeding houses. We used something called a
table of houses in those days. If we had a quality Table of Houses like
Dalton's we had the Sidereal Time, the Right Ascension Medium Coeli, and
the Degree of the Zodiac for every MC degree of the Zodiac. If we wanted
to we could have added 30 degrees to the RAMC and gotten the same result.
In those halcyon days of yore we liked Meridian because it gave us spatial
devisions of the sky by dividing up the time of the day into twelve equal
parts by using the position of the southern direction and just letting the
world turn in twelve equal segments. We could generate Meridian houses
with a sun dial without difficulty. Perfect acid head hippy simplicity.
It seemed to be the natural system that worked without lunes and could be
calculated without special tools or insight. I personally think that it
was the first system of houses and was probably used by Moonwatcher the
ape-man in 2001who threw the bone into the air and fell from grace to
humanity. I think that the Equal house system came much later when prople
took to the sea in ships and had constant reference to a clearly defined
horizon for 360 degrees. There are just too many obstacles in the land
based horizon to support the theory that the Equal house system is older.
People lived their whole lives in the view of mountain ranges which
blocked their sight of planets rising but they never had culmination of a
planet blocked.
Culmination is more important than ascendancy--more primary, simpler,
basic.
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
Jon Dunn
On 25 Feb 1997, Siderealm wrote:
> Jon Dunn I am beginning to believe that you are a Chameleon. You argued
> ferociously for the Equal house system a month or more ago when I brought
> this thread up when I explained the Uranian system's use of Meridian,
> Equal, Nodal Sun, Nodal Moon, Sun, and Moon Houses. You snipped my
> comments as being ramblings.
Do you have quotations to the point that I "ferociously defended" the
equal system? I remember snipping many of your technical comments,
including your list of preferred house systems, because I did NOT see any
problem with them, or disagree. After all, all of the above are variations
of an equal ecliptical system. We may have been squabbling over something
else, however...
> Then a week ago you responded again taking
> issue with my suggestion of Porphyry as an alternative for people who are
> in polar latitudes, saying that you could not support anything but Equal
> or Campanus because you perceived a consistency of generation in those
> systems that was lacking in other systems.
Well, I'm not sure how extreme I was being...did I say that I "could not
support" the others?
> And today you are again coming
> around to the Meridian and Equal house systems and making vague
> references to all of the information in my post to you regarding the other
> four systems used by Uranian astrologers without citations as to where
> the information came from.
You have me at a disadvantage. I cannot agree that I was attempting to
refer to anything which you posted.
> I guess what I am trying to say here is that when you make monthly
> changes of opinions regarding the subjects here, that it would be more
> helpful to your readers to cite your sources and references in the
> professional manner and remember that we all stand upon the shoulders of
> giants and are at the same time linking arms. Footnotes, references, and
> citations are the way in which we allow others to follow the Great
> Conversation of the Ages. This is the basic technique of scholarship.
Amusingly, some people have angrily characterized me as a
"quoter-ologist", suggesting that I didn't put forth my own ideas, but
only those of others. I would also challenge you to post specific
instances of what you call "changes of opinions". Thanks.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/strol
******************************************************************************
Jon Dunn
On 25 Feb 1997, Seed of Life wrote:
> There has been talk that the zenith is important for house divisions.
> Yet it seems to me that the "horizon" is much more important because
> it truly demarcates a boundary.
Fair enough...
> A boundary between the earth and
> the sky.
The zenith is the center of the sky, not the boundary.
> The zenith doesn't seem to demarcate any boundary.
This might be a good argument for using the "edges" of the Sun or Moon
over the center - i.e. 13 or so hours each month, the Sun is actually in
two different signs. The position you see in the ephemeris is the center
of the Sun, which suddenly moves into a particular sign at a certain
moment. But the edges / boundaries of the Sun move into a new sign about 6
or so hours before and after this moment...
> I think most people have a connection with their ascendant more
> than with their midheaven. So it seems that any house system must
> first start with the ascendant/descendant demarcation. And then
> build from there.
Most people would probably agree with that...
> Whether or not the zenith is 90 degrees from the
> ascendant all the time is the question here.
Well, it IS, if you use the same co-ordinate system for both. The reason
that the MC and ASC aren't close to square most of the time is that the
ASC is on the ecliptic, and the MC (though also on the ecliptic) is based
on the projection toward the equator.
******************************************************************************
http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/strol
******************************************************************************
Jon Dunn
On 25 Feb 1997, Siderealm wrote:
> I think we are making this discussion of the Meridian system much more
> complicated than it really is.
> ...
> Culmination is more important than ascendancy--more primary, simpler,
> basic.
Ah! So we've had two diffent opinions posted here today - one person for
the primacy of the ASC, one for the MC.
Interesting...
*****************************************************************************
"Is it a comet? ... we know the activity we see is not due to water
sublimating from the surface, as is the case for comets ... maybe Chiron
could be considered for membership in the Ice planets to keep Pluto
company..." - Marc W. Buie, Lowell Observatory
*****************************************************************************
jon...@speakeasy.org http://www.speakeasy.org/~jondunn/
*****************************************************************************
Jon Dunn
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Each person is going to garner what they do from the mandalic experience
> what is true for them.
Uh, okay.
> I find it difficult to understand your need to
> get so defensive.
Not surprised.
> Since we each create our reality through the
> definitions and perspective we hold-the astuteness of the astrologer is
> intimately caught up in the co-created event of chart interpretation.
I'm not sure if it would be more true that I don't understand or that I
don't agree.
> If
> you are analysing your own, then your own system of beliefs is what will
> register and transform your consciousness in the ways it needs to-or you
> need it to.
The categories here are so broad...
> I read some of your other respoonses and your expression
> that you wished to find something more-something that will impress your
> consciousness-that is what we all do-the thing is that it is a PERSONAL
> creation and will be different for each person.
Okay.
> It is not something that
> will impress EACH consciousness in the same way,
Not EXACTLY the same, which is not to deny that there might be something
significant in common. But what are we talking about, again?
> because each individual
> creates their VERSION of whatever the mandala triggers for them
This language is certainly "loaded" - does the suggestion that the
individual "creates..." EXPLICITLY NEGATE discussions of cause and effect?
or NEGATE the idea of influences beyond the individual's awareness which
"create" one's reality? But what are we talking about, again?
> -they are
> all real and all valid
Are these your personal value judgements or do you hold these truths to be
self-evident? And what are we talking about, again?
> and cannot be categorized and formatted to mean
> the same thing to each-because the consciousness of the observer is the
> co-creating element.
You put forth flowery ideas and then INSIST that they contradict other
philosphical notions, and really ought to believe me when I say that you
are only preaching to the choir and no one who did not start out agreeing
will be convinced. And please PLEASE don't say we all create our own
reality and that ALL arguments fall into that category. PLEASE, FOR THE
LOVE OF GOD, NO NO NOOOOOO!!!
> It is not outside of us
...so, if someone says "it is both within us and outside of us" they are
wrong? Because of your terribly exclusionary flowery truisms? What are we
talking about, again?
> and this is why astrology
> is an ARCHETYPAL TRIGGER that leads to awareness and understanding and
> insight-not a cookbook that TELLS anyone what is.
Not at all?? ever??? not even a little bit??? "... and this is why it IS
the one and NOT the other." You misuse flowery truisms. Thay are a tool to
express and explore alternative views and visions - not something which
TELLS anyone what is NOT true.
> Some are more accurate in sensing consciousness with helio, sidereal, or
> with any number of houses
Okay.
> -even divisions are arbitrary
I could ask you what you mean by "arbitrary" but I'm sure I'd be fatigued
and exasperated by your inbred flowery "response".
> -it is a co-created event.
And you mean this in the STRONG sense, i.e. if I say "it is true in a way
to call it a co-created even and true in another to say it isn't" then I
am ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
> The truth is WE NEED NO CHART to know the things we can know WITH
> one-
Especially in the ambiguous realm of flowery truisms.
> it is a tool and a crutch-it depends once again on the consciousness
> of the observer.
I could agree or disagree. There is that much ambiguity in your flowery
truisms.
> > Moderation is the key - a judicious blending of "liberation" and
> > "constraint", and whomsoever doesn't understand that is an extremist of
> > some sort. So say I.
> First it must be questioned whether your perceptions define through
> discernment some belief structure independent of your own.
Oh.
> This is a
> subjective value judgment on your part and if allowed-tells us more of
> your state than mine-
-but nothing you couldn't know about me withing having read it - it is a
crutch.
> but since you are so defensive toward anything I
> say
How could this be? It seems impossible that your imperious manner could
ever result in defensiveness.
> it is doubtful this can be of service-you are stuck on this
> extremist thing-
I am? And what are you "stuck on"?
> because you cannot move beyond the idea that there is
> some inherent meaning in the multiverse-
Om. And you cannot "move beyond" the idea that there isn't. Om.
> can you not recognize that what
> is extreme to one is mediocre to another? Extremist according to what?
I can do you what you cannot - admit that what I've said is debatable, and
listen to alternative views. This is "irrelevant" in your empire.
> It is the intention and the expression of negative or positive energy
> that is the crux-not the level-Einstein was an extremist-constraint can
> be negative guilt or positive wisdom-there is no "thats the way it is".
Right. That's the way it is.
> These things are only "dangerous" to a perspective that fears (believes)
> this to be dangerous. Please define this universal yardstick that you
> use to measure whether I am this or that.
You want me to manufacture a "definition" which resembles your own. This
would be painful for me and I would not regard the result as much to be
impressed with.
> > This wavers dangerously close to the "Neptunian" approach - letting things
> > take their course - and would seem to threaten your usual "Uranian" mania
> > - that all things are chosen and put in place by one's own monadic will.
> If you cannot see the paranoic defense in the above-and judgment-I am
> sorry for you.
Worse sentiments have been directed at me...
> I will refrain from responding to anymore of your posts.
I am not the last person to be gladdened at that prospect.
> > I may do my usual with you and let you have the last word.
> My, my, how big of you.
"It takes a big man to cry, and it takes an even bigger man to laugh at
that man" - Jack Handey
> "A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's." Jean Paul Richter
A man never discloses his defensiveness so clearly as when he describes
any and all descriptions of himself from others as being merely references
to themselves.
Seed of Life
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> writes: > On 25 Feb 1997, Siderealm wrote:
>
> > I think we are making this discussion of the Meridian system much more
> > complicated than it really is.
> > ...
>
> > Culmination is more important than ascendancy--more primary, simpler,
> > basic.
>
> Ah! So we've had two diffent opinions posted here today - one person for
> the primacy of the ASC, one for the MC.
>
> Interesting...
I have great faith in the midheaven/IC line. The day my family moved
to Hawaii when I was young, Sun, Saturn and Moon were conjunct on my
fourth house cusp.
I favor the ascendant and midheaven lines, but as for the house cusps
in between these, I have seen some connections favor the Campanus
system, but not always.
Ed Lambert
Edmond Wollmann
Because of a severe lack of logical arguments Jon Dunn spun:
> Uh, okay.
> Not surprised.
> I'm not sure if it would be more true that I don't understand or that I
> don't agree.
> The categories here are so broad...
> Okay.
> This language is certainly "loaded" - does the suggestion that the
> individual "creates..." EXPLICITLY NEGATE discussions of cause and effect?
> or NEGATE the idea of influences beyond the individual's awareness which
> "create" one's reality?
>But what are we talking about, again?
> Are these your personal value judgements or do you hold these truths to be
> self-evident?
>And what are we talking about, again?
> You put forth
>flowery ideas
^^^^^^^^
> and then INSIST that they contradict other
> philosphical notions, and really ought to believe me when I say that you
> are only preaching to the choir and no one who did not start out agreeing
> will be convinced. And please PLEASE don't say we all create our own
> reality and that ALL arguments fall into that category. PLEASE, FOR THE
> LOVE OF GOD, NO NO NOOOOOO!!!
> ...so, if someone says "it is both within us and outside of us" they are
> wrong? Because of your terribly exclusionary
>flowery truisms?
^^^^^^
> What are we talking about, again?
> Not at all?? ever??? not even a little bit??? "... and this is why it IS
> the one and NOT the other." You misuse flowery truisms. Thay are a tool to
> express and explore alternative views and visions - not something which
> TELLS anyone what is NOT true.
> Okay.
> I could ask you what you mean by "arbitrary" but I'm sure I'd be fatigued
> and exasperated by your inbred
>flowery "response".
^^^^^^^^
> And you mean this in the STRONG sense, i.e. if I say "it is true in a way
> to call it a co-created even and true in another to say it isn't" then I
> am ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
> Especially in the ambiguous realm of
>flowery truisms.
^^^^^^^^
> I could agree or disagree. There is that much ambiguity in your
>flowery truisms.
^^^^^^^^^
> Oh.
> -but nothing you couldn't know about me withing having read it - it is a
> crutch.
> How could this be? It seems impossible that your imperious manner could
> ever result in defensiveness.
> I am? And what are you "stuck on"?
> Om. And you cannot "move beyond" the idea that there isn't. Om.
> I can do you what you cannot - admit that what I've said is debatable, and
> listen to alternative views. This is "irrelevant" in your empire.
> Right. That's the way it is.
> You want me to manufacture a "definition" which resembles your own. This
> would be painful for me and I would not regard the result as much to be
> impressed with.
> Worse sentiments have been directed at me...
> I am not the last person to be gladdened at that prospect.
> > > I may do my usual with you and let you have the last word.
EW said;
> > My, my, how big of you.
> "It takes a big man to cry, and it takes an even bigger man to laugh at
> that man" - Jack Handey
EW said;
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
> A man never discloses his defensiveness so clearly as when he describes
> any and all descriptions of himself from others as being merely references
> to themselves.
Very clearly an objective account and a lot of words for someone who was
non-defensive and letting me have the last one-I'm glad you didn't need
to have the last word like petty little me. "Flowery truisms" ????:-)))
You would be good at politics eh? Well this rhetorical account of my
flowery truisms has certainly clarified much for me.
--
Susan B. Anthony=Transexual in Ebonics.
Edmond Wollmann
C. B. Willis wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
> : ...ARCHETYPAL TRIGGER ...
> Yep, fascinating concept. How universal creative ideas get triggered
> through conversation, and our interpretation of life events. These in
> turn become causative in creating other things, setting a new chain of
> events in motion, depending on how the ideas are handled. Yep, lots
> to crunch on here...archetypal/symbolic/linguistic bridges to the future.
Hi CB! Do you notice too how these things all gel and come together with
the client? Sometimes I am amazed at the remarkable symbology and
synchronicity that arises in consultation-it is quite a learning
experience for me as well as the client and is fascinating.
It is all one thing working in perfect accord-perhaps this is the
reason?:-) I feel often that my higher self takes over and I am just
along for the ride while I watch and learn.
I am sure you have experienced the revelations that occur very often-it
is much fun and is topped off by a big hug with the client at the end
when you both realize that something "archetypal" but profoundly "real"
has taken place. Science can NEVER measure this.
--
"I thank the lord for the people I have found....Turn around and say
good morning to the night. For unless they see the sky-but they can't
and that is why. They know not if its dark outside or light." Elton John
"Mona Lisa's and Madhatters"
----------------
> Carol Willis, MA
> Professional Astrologer since 1970
> Sunnyvale CA (408) 734-9110 cbwi...@netcom.com
> For free subscription to my bi-monthly astrology column and
> related articles, send message SUB ASTROLIST.
Chester Kemp
I have read a number of comments on house division - a debate and
quandry that will obviously run and run as it has done throughout this
century!
I have sympathy for Risto Vartiainen's comments because he is having
to deal with one of the realities of using astrology where a lot of
his charts will be set for near or above the polar circle. His
answers are likely to be a realistic compromise for his problems.
But, his problems are clearly reflected in the astronomical reality -
in the polar circle the year lasts one night/day cycle. By the by,
for those born ABSOLUTELY on the north or south pole, there is not
even a real sidereal time (as it is all of them simultaneously)!
His most understandable statement (based on his personal experience)
that he us unhappy with using a house system which uses the Ascendant
as the 1st house may be expedient, but it goes against astrological
experience for much of the western astrological world. Charles Carter
(I think) said that just because a pomegranate doesn't grow naturally
in the polar circle does not mean that it does not exist! For most of
the occupied globe, there is an unambiguous Ascendant, and an MC at a
distance that allows most of the house systems to provide conveniently
sized houses.
Charles Carter (again!) suggested that different house systems could
co-exist, and suggested for example that Equal House seemed to be apt
for astrologer's who liked a more abstract psychological approach,
Placidus for the day-to-day circumstances of life, whilst Campanus for
the fatalistic bunch of astrologers.
This does not provide an easy answer - and I do not believe that there
is a single answer. Certainly, you won't find a theoretically perfect
system (despite the spurious claims for Koch Birthplace system) and
therefore probably the cop-out will remain that of trying the various
systems and stick with the one that suits you best. (Grossly
unscientific).
Before I got shot for deriding Koch - it is a valid astrological
system, but then so are Topocentric, Regiomontanus, Campanus,
Placidus, Alcabitius, Morinus, Equal House from MC or Asc, etc etc etc
Have you tried the Randomocentric system?? (You just pick the houses
at random) the mainstay of the Neptunian Astrological School!!
For myself, I continue to use one that is inadequate in the farthest
latitudes, but I do find that it makes 'sense' in character
delineation, and works with accuracy with progressions etc.
Jon Dunn
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Very clearly an objective account and a lot of words for someone who was
> non-defensive
Like other humans, there is some trace of defensiveness, often. YOU are
the one playing god, presuming NEVER to be defensive.
> and letting me have the last one
I said I "may" give you the last word; you said you wouldn't respond to my
posts. You are being inconsistent; I was excercising my options.
> -I'm glad you didn't need
> to have the last word like petty little me. "Flowery truisms" ????:-)))
Its just that after arguing with you before, I started feeling really
embarassed and kooky for even trying. I told myself that I wasn't even
going to read your response, and that would be how I would avoid needing
to respond. I was weak, however. Have you ever been weak, Ed? I didn't
think so, only cosmically strong 24 hours a day. And certainly never
"defensive" - heavens no!!
> You would be good at politics eh? Well this rhetorical account of my
> flowery truisms has certainly clarified much for me.
If only.
Internetcafé Den Haag
>Because of a severe lack of logical arguments Jon Dunn spun:
>
>> Uh, okay.
>
>> Not surprised.
>
>> I'm not sure if it would be more true that I don't understand or that I
>> don't agree.
>
>> The categories here are so broad...
>
>> Okay.
>
>> This language is certainly "loaded" - does the suggestion that the
>> individual "creates..." EXPLICITLY NEGATE discussions of cause and effect?
>> or NEGATE the idea of influences beyond the individual's awareness which
>> "create" one's reality?
>
>>But what are we talking about, again?
>
>> Are these your personal value judgements or do you hold these truths to be
>> self-evident?
>
>>And what are we talking about, again?
>
>> You put forth
>
>>flowery ideas
>^^^^^^^^
>
>> and then INSIST that they contradict other
>> philosphical notions, and really ought to believe me when I say that you
>> are only preaching to the choir and no one who did not start out agreeing
>> will be convinced. And please PLEASE don't say we all create our own
>> reality and that ALL arguments fall into that category. PLEASE, FOR THE
>> LOVE OF GOD, NO NO NOOOOOO!!!
>
>> ...so, if someone says "it is both within us and outside of us" they are
>> wrong? Because of your terribly exclusionary
>
>>flowery truisms?
>^^^^^^
>
>> What are we talking about, again?
>
>> Not at all?? ever??? not even a little bit??? "... and this is why it IS
>> the one and NOT the other." You misuse flowery truisms. Thay are a tool to
>> express and explore alternative views and visions - not something which
>> TELLS anyone what is NOT true.
>
>> Okay.
>
>> I could ask you what you mean by "arbitrary" but I'm sure I'd be fatigued
>> and exasperated by your inbred
>
>>flowery "response".
>^^^^^^^^
>
>> And you mean this in the STRONG sense, i.e. if I say "it is true in a way
>> to call it a co-created even and true in another to say it isn't" then I
>> am ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
>
>> Especially in the ambiguous realm of
>
>
>>flowery truisms.
>^^^^^^^^
>
>> I could agree or disagree. There is that much ambiguity in your
>
>
>>flowery truisms.
>^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Oh.
>
>> -but nothing you couldn't know about me withing having read it - it is a
>> crutch.
>
>> How could this be? It seems impossible that your imperious manner could
>> ever result in defensiveness.
>
>> I am? And what are you "stuck on"?
>
>> Om. And you cannot "move beyond" the idea that there isn't. Om.
>
>> I can do you what you cannot - admit that what I've said is debatable, and
>> listen to alternative views. This is "irrelevant" in your empire.
>
>> Right. That's the way it is.
>
>> You want me to manufacture a "definition" which resembles your own. This
>> would be painful for me and I would not regard the result as much to be
>> impressed with.
>
>> Worse sentiments have been directed at me...
>
>> I am not the last person to be gladdened at that prospect.
>
>> > > I may do my usual with you and let you have the last word.
>
>EW said;
>> > My, my, how big of you.
>
>> "It takes a big man to cry, and it takes an even bigger man to laugh at
>> that man" - Jack Handey
>
>EW said;
>
>"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's." Jean Paul Richter
>
>> A man never discloses his defensiveness so clearly as when he describes
>> any and all descriptions of himself from others as being merely references
>> to themselves.
>
>Very clearly an objective account and a lot of words for someone who was
>non-defensive and letting me have the last one-I'm glad you didn't need
>to have the last word like petty little me. "Flowery truisms" ????:-)))
>You would be good at politics eh? Well this rhetorical account of my
>flowery truisms has certainly clarified much for me.
>-O.K.
-
>Susan B. Anthony=Transexual in Ebonics.
>--
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
>http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
>PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
>(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Reraration
EWollmann
Jon Dunn in a fit of one of his accusitory God statements said;
> YOU are
> the one playing god, presuming NEVER to be defensive.
---
Didn't you just say this about another poster that disagreed with you? (Or
was it several now). Why are we always playing God if we don't freak out
in response to your speculations?
Oh yes here's one with Paul Schlyter;
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 1997, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> You speak with the voice of God. You play God. Only God would KNOW FOR
> CERTAIN if something were "merely arbitrary".
And here with Pete Stapleton;
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, pete stapleton wrote:
> Pete Stapleton comments: Dave, no one ever used precession, or any
> other earth measurement to define the astrological influence actually
> found in the sky.
Says you and only you. You really do see yourself as a kind of God-figure,
don't you...?
> All ancient astrology was based upon the astrological influences
> actually found in the sky.
Says you and only you. You really do see yourself as a kind of God-figure,
don't you...?
Even on your insult page you have;
With humble and spritual upliftedness, your personal God, ______.
HHmmm. I see....
--
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Professional Member of the American Federation of Astrologers, AFAN, ISAR
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Jon Dunn
On 26 Feb 1997, EWollmann wrote:
> Jon Dunn in a fit of one of his accusitory God statements said;
>
> > YOU are
> > the one playing god, presuming NEVER to be defensive.
> ---
> Didn't you just say this about another poster that disagreed with you? (Or
> was it several now).
It does annoy me when people do that, yes.
> Why are we always playing God if we don't freak out in response to your
> speculations?
"We (Stapleton, Schlyter, and yourself - most others who post here are
pretty human)" are playing god not when they "don't freak out" whatever
that means, but when they issue forth argumentitive truisms, and ignore
(sometimes subtly, sometimes quite explicitly) what others are attempting
to get across.
What helps discussion is then people use a HUMAN voice and make "I"
statements. What helps argument and alienation is when people announce -
in more and more emphatic and arrogant tones - the obvious and unequivocal
truth. Right?
I have refrained from explicitly equating you with Mr Schlyter and Mr
Stapleton, because I didn't want to taunt them into posting on this group.
But yes, what I wanted to say was something like "like Mr Schlyter and Mr
Stapleton, you seem to think you have all the answers, and don't enter
very effectively into discussions, therefore." No, it's no co-incidence.
And there are any number of instances where people have disagreed with me
about things and I haven't lost my temper or engaged in name-calling. What
gets my goat is when you guys who are 90% attitude and 10% intelligence
blather on and on with your rhetoric, often harassing people who are just
trying to think and hash things out here.
Like Mr Schlyter and Mr Stapleton, you seem to think that uncertainty and
self-revelation are signs of weakness, and delight in treating the
exasperation or silence of others as an indication of your own victory.
> Even on your insult page you have;
> With humble and spritual upliftedness, your personal God, ______.
>
> HHmmm. I see....
You ALWAYS see and never lose your cool. That's what is so wonderful about
you, Ed.
> "A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's." Jean Paul Richter
I really think you need to take the WHOLE of what a person says about
others - as many others as possible - to get the gist of what kind of
projections they are actually PRONE to. Maybe this tells something about
their character. If you look at what I write to others, you will not find
this "God" thing as a trend - actually look at the bulk of my posts and
responses! Oh, or is this too much work for someone who 1) already has all
the answers from having been everywhere and done everything, and 2)
doesn't need to worry over the details of life, since these don't exist
independently from what you "create".
Defensive? You bet! Upset? Definitely! And the fact that you are going to
sit back smugly and regard what I've said as 1) all a projection just like
whatever ANYONE says that you choose to block out, and 2) proof that you
are MORE right because you have managed to get LESS upset. (From
experience OF YOU I say this).
No, you stupid smug idiot! You cannot take what people say to you and
apply the generalization that it is ALWAYS about themselves. What kind of
an arrogant fascist bastard are you? How do you sleep at night, with such
a 100% lazy self-indulgent philosophy? I have not been so angry in quite a
long time. Person after person who would like to think otherwise tells you
that you are being unreasonable and arrogant. But they are all only
projecting their own traits onto you. And that doesn't strike you as odd
because of your tangled inbred philosphies from channeled works which you
use as a crutch and a shield to protect you from any and all actual
interaction with the world. I cannot decide if you are more flake or more
fiend.
And this exchange would not exist if you had a better grasp of logic. You
may have an idea. I may have a different idea. You have a tendency to
INSIST THAT SOMEONE IS WRONG when they say something in a different way
from you which might actually come out to mean the same thing!
This is not about astrology, or philosphy. It is about your GODDAM
ARROGANT attitude, which you have in common with a number of others in
this world. And I don't think it is most, or I wouldn't post here. No, I
don't talk to MOST people like this, which would indeed suggest something
about ME.
Edmond Wollmann
Like all "systems" of belief every house system has its own reinforcing
logic and is the preference or choice of the "intuitor".
Just like choices in types of astrology and application-it is the
co-creator that empowers it-or misuses it-or fumbles with it.
--
"Men at some time are masters of their fates:"The fault, dear Brutus, is
not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings." Shakespeare,
Julius Caesar, Act 1: scene 2, 130
Risto Vartiainen
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:24:52 GMT, che...@zetnet.co.uk (Chester Kemp)
wrote:
>
>I have sympathy for Risto Vartiainen's comments because he is having
>to deal with one of the realities of using astrology where a lot of
>his charts will be set for near or above the polar circle. His
>answers are likely to be a realistic compromise for his problems.
>But, his problems are clearly reflected in the astronomical reality -
>in the polar circle the year lasts one night/day cycle.
<snip>
>
>His most understandable statement (based on his personal experience)
>that he us unhappy with using a house system which uses the Ascendant
>as the 1st house may be expedient, but it goes against astrological
>experience for much of the western astrological world.
I do include the Ascendant point in each and every chart, and I also
use (sometimes) the Equal Houses calculated from the Ascendant (or
its sign) as the primary house system in some charts (for some
people). However, I said that I do not employ AS as the 1st cusp *and*
MC as the 10th cusp *in the same chart*. Rather, I use them as
starting points for two separate house systems, one based on MC, the
other based on AS. These two views can be seen as complementary
viewpoints on the same birth moment. But they emphasize different
things in different ways. For instance, I see MC houses referring more
to the subjective being and experience of the person (in Cosmobiology
MC refers to the ego -- some refer to MC /IC axes as the axis of Soul,
etc), while Equal Houses might refer more to spontaneuos attitudes
toward different spheres of life-experience -- Sorry, no space to
elaborate on this here...
Charles Carter (I think) said that just because a pomegranate doesn't
grow naturally
>in the polar circle does not mean that it does not exist! For most of
>the occupied globe, there is an unambiguous Ascendant, and an MC at a
>distance that allows most of the house systems to provide conveniently
>sized houses.
Most "conveniently sized houses" between different systems just do not
differ from each other so much in temperate latitudes that easy
comparison would be possible -- especially if we allow some orb for
planets located near the intermediate cusps, as many astrologers seem
to do. Here "up North" the differences stand out most clearly. And
although AS and MC can be unambiguously determined, quadrant systems
in which both points represent house cusps do not often make sense
here at all. If quadrant systems are not valid here, where is the
cutting point?
>
>Charles Carter (again!) suggested that different house systems could
>co-exist, and suggested for example that Equal House seemed to be apt
>for astrologer's who liked a more abstract psychological approach,
>Placidus for the day-to-day circumstances of life, whilst Campanus for
>the fatalistic bunch of astrologers.
I absolutely agree that there is not one and only correct system, but
the above well meaning, "democratic" classifications, though based on
some obvious associations (Equal Houses >< Zodiacal Archetypes buffs,
Placidus >< the average astrologer, Campanus >< the prediction
oriented Siderealists) are not quite convincing. Meanings defined to
houses are most often exactly the same, though the cusps differ (and
they differ a lot here!).
I guess I am only satisfied with some more globally valid system. - I
have sometimes said that if astrology was "invented" by the eskimos or
Lapplanders, the rising (AS) / culminating (MC) paradigm on which most
house systems are based on would be supplanted by the cardinal
directions (S/N + E/W) paradigm, and in it the AS would be replaced
by the AntiVertex. (I have used and experimented with this "quadrant"
system a lot; it works much better here, because the angle between
horizon and the ecliptic is often very small. This results often in
nearly equal houses from MC in practice.)
Astrologers plot the planets normally in Zodiacal longitude and
sometimes even in RA. These are the circles that provide the least
amount of distortion. However, when we try to include representatives
of more than one local planes (Prime Vertical, Meridian, Horizon),
like AS and MC as house cusps in the same chart drawing, we end up in
trouble.
To put it simply, I am an advocate of various types of Equal house
systems that can be used in complementary way to explore the same
birth-moment in different interpretational dimensions. From this
viewpoint it seems that the quadrant systems are the compromising
systems, because they try to synthesize more than one starting or
defining point into one representation thus grossly distorting the
"house space".
However, my views are evolving all the time (at least I hope they are
not just randomly changing shape!) and I welcome all comments and
suggestions.
Thanks, Chester
Edmond Wollmann
Jon Dunn wrote:
On 26 Feb 1997, EWollmann wrote:
> Jon Dunn in a fit of one of his accusitory God statements said;
> > YOU are
> > the one playing god, presuming NEVER to be defensive.
---
> Didn't you just say this about another poster that disagreed with you? (Or
> was it several now).
>Oh yes here's one with Paul Schlyter;
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 1997, Paul Schlyter wrote:
> You speak with the voice of God. You play God. Only God would KNOW FOR
> CERTAIN if something were "merely arbitrary".
>And here with Pete Stapleton;
>>On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, pete stapleton wrote:
>> Pete Stapleton comments: Dave, no one ever used precession, or any
>> other earth measurement to define the astrological influence actually
>> found in the sky.
>Says you and only you. You really do see yourself as a kind of >God-figure,
>don't you...?
>> All ancient astrology was based upon the astrological influences
>> actually found in the sky.
>Says you and only you. You really do see yourself as a kind of >God-figure,
>don't you...?
--
Jon Dunn wrote;
--
I see...
--
often harassing people who are just
trying to think and hash things out here.
Like Mr Schlyter and Mr Stapleton, you seem to think that uncertainty
and
self-revelation are signs of weakness, and delight in treating the
exasperation or silence of others as an indication of your own victory.
> Even on your insult page you have;
> With humble and spritual upliftedness, your personal God, ______.
> HHmmm. I see....
You ALWAYS see and never lose your cool. That's what is so wonderful
about you, Ed.
> "A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's." Jean Paul Richter
I really think you need to take the WHOLE of what a person says about
others - as many others as possible - to get the gist of what kind of
projections they are actually PRONE to. Maybe this tells something about
their character. If you look at what I write to others, you will not
find this "God" thing as a trend - actually look at the bulk of my posts
and responses!
Oh, or is this too much work for someone who 1) already has all
the answers from having been everywhere and done everything, and 2)
doesn't need to worry over the details of life, since these don't exist
independently from what you "create".
--
I see...
--
Defensive? You bet! Upset? Definitely! And the fact that you are going
to
sit back smugly and regard what I've said as
1) all a projection just like whatever ANYONE says that you choose to
block out, and
2) proof that you are MORE right because you have managed to get LESS
upset. (From experience OF YOU I say this).
--
I see..
--
No, you stupid smug idiot! You cannot take what people say to you and
apply the generalization that it is ALWAYS about themselves. What kind
of
an arrogant fascist bastard are you? How do you sleep at night, with
such
a 100% lazy self-indulgent philosophy? I have not been so angry in quite
a long time. Person after person who would like to think otherwise tells
you that you are being unreasonable and arrogant. But they are all only
projecting their own traits onto you. And that doesn't strike you as odd
because of your tangled inbred philosphies from channeled works which
you
use as a crutch and a shield to protect you from any and all actual
interaction with the world. I cannot decide if you are more flake or
more
fiend.
--
I see..
--
And this exchange would not exist if you had a better grasp of logic.
You
may have an idea. I may have a different idea. You have a tendency to
INSIST THAT SOMEONE IS WRONG when they say something in a different way
from you which might actually come out to mean the same thing!
This is not about astrology, or philosphy. It is about your GODDAM
ARROGANT attitude, which you have in common with a number of others in
this world. And I don't think it is most, or I wouldn't post here. No, I
don't talk to MOST people like this, which would indeed suggest
something
about ME.
--
I see..
--
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
Mary L. Urquhart
"Michael Erlewine" <mic...@TheNewAge.com> wrote:
>William Roberts <Astrologe...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> We all seem to discourse about systems as if they were more important
>> than the end for which these are but a means. If I use a system to
>> arrive at an awareness and you use another and arrive at the same
>> awareness, is this not, "Many paths, same truth"?
>I agree with what William Roberts writes. People seem to forget that
>astrology is not a science and that its chief purpose is not prediction,
>but awareness. Astrology is, in essence, an oracle and, like all oracles,
>the ritual or means to contact that oracle is where astrologers differ and
...snip...
>Because astrology is not a science, there is no one 'correct' house system.
>There are many systems and they each provide a somewhat (or very) different
>view. Which view(s) are useful for each of us is (as said above) where
>astrologers differ and agree to find their differences.
>Thanks.
>Michael Erlewine
> Matrix Software/AMG (web site: TheNewAge.com)
Sorry, but I must disagree with this. I believe astrology to be a
science as much as psychology is a science. However, it is a "soft"
science, or a science of less easily-definable things than one finds
in the hard sciences such as physics or chemistry.
And psychology does not use one and only one method of ... well, of
doing anything. It uses an arsenol, and is developing more all the
time. It's due to the nature of the beast, so to speak (and referring
to humankind) that there are so many variables, variances, and
vicillitating between one thing and the next. There is no one way to
pigeon-hole a person, and psychology is a reflection of this, as is
astrology. So, please, for those of us who are trying to use
astrology as yet another means to enlighten ourselves concerning the
human condition, try to not wrap it up in terms such as 'oracle'. It
is far too definable, too lacking in oracular ambiguities, to be put
in that league.
franz isfort
/alt/astrology 27 Feb 97 * Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) :
> --
> I see...
> --
ED, you definitively made it into my kill file. enjoy the company of
Pete S., Sid. Jeff, T. Seers, TT, BDK, E. Curley, Jai M., Dr.Turi et al.
bye,
--
franz isfort, hannover
mailto:f...@tyche.han.de
Michael Erlewine
> Sorry, but I must disagree with this. I believe astrology to be a
> science as much as psychology is a science. However, it is a "soft"
> science, or a science of less easily-definable things than one finds
> in the hard sciences such as physics or chemistry.
> And psychology does not use one and only one method of ... well, of
> doing anything. It uses an arsenol, and is developing more all the
> time. It's due to the nature of the beast, so to speak (and referring
> to humankind) that there are so many variables, variances, and
> vicillitating between one thing and the next. There is no one way to
> pigeon-hole a person, and psychology is a reflection of this, as is
> astrology. So, please, for those of us who are trying to use
> astrology as yet another means to enlighten ourselves concerning the
> human condition, try to not wrap it up in terms such as 'oracle'. It
> is far too definable, too lacking in oracular ambiguities, to be put
> in that league.
>
I consider it a plus for astrology that it can also function as an oracle.
For years, I was unable to face up to the fact that astrology is also (or
can be) and oracle. It is easier (for me) to redeem the word 'oracle" than
to try and divorce astrology from it. The two (astrology and oracles) are
not mutually exclusive. All opinions are honored.
Thanks,
Michael Erlewine, Matrix/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
Roger L. Satterlee
Oracle works for me...In as much as astrology relies on individual
perception and interpretation, it better qualifies as abstract art
anyway.
(But if one cannot 'see' the abstract art, I guess one will have to
appreciate the guilding of the frames and try to remember what everybody
else has said about the works--so we won't look like the Emperor/ess in
our new clothes...:)
Just being a pest,
Rog
--
rog...@ix.netcom.com
11:53EDT 26Jul50 076W48 42N06
http://www.ix.netcom.com/~roger9/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
William Roberts
Astrology is perhaps the only science that defines individual
perceptions.
Kevin Burk
Chester Kemp wrote:
>
<<SNIP>>
>
> His most understandable statement (based on his personal experience)
> that he us unhappy with using a house system which uses the Ascendant
> as the 1st house may be expedient, but it goes against astrological
> experience for much of the western astrological world.
<<SNIP>>
>
> For myself, I continue to use one that is inadequate in the farthest
> latitudes, but I do find that it makes 'sense' in character
> delineation, and works with accuracy with progressions etc.
Chester,
It's important to remember that the "Ascendant = 1st house cusp" is a
relatively modern conceit, as are all of our "house systems." Classical
astrology used whole sign houses where if, for example, the Ascendant
was anywhere in Gemini, the 1st house would be the entire sign of
Gemini, the 2nd House all of Cancer, etc. This can make for some
interesting situations, as with my chart, where I have 29 Gemini rising,
and the vast majority of my "1st House" is actually _Above_ the Horizon.
Using the Ascendant as the Horoscopoi exclusively is also a relatively
modern technique. The Sun, the Moon, and the Part of Fortune were also
frequently used as the horoscopoi (hour marker) in classical astrology;
whatever sign these planets or points happened to be in becomes the 1st
Whole Sign House.
I tend to look at the various house systems in the same way that I look
at most bathroom scales in that if you experiment enough with where and
how you place the scale, you can pretty much adjust your weight to
something that you like (within reason). It's the same way with house
systems; if you don't like Saturn in your 4th house, play with enough
house systems, and it could end up in your 5th or 6th house. It might
make you feel better to look at it, but it doesn't change a damned thing
when it comes down to the actual experience. I still run Koch houses on
my charts, but I usually work with whole sign houses for interpretation.
Peace,
Kevin
--
*****************************************************************
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
*****************************************************************
EWollmann
Franz isfort wrote;
>ED, you definitively made it into my kill file. enjoy the company of
>Pete S., Sid. Jeff, T. Seers, TT, BDK, E. Curley, Jai M., Dr.Turi et al.
>bye,
Well I don't even know you, best to you in your future endeavors. (sorry
if I don't remember).
Curious, I never killfiled anyone because of their conversation with
someone else!
Perhaps it is more preferable if I called Mr. Dunn a "smug idiot" back?
One must make decisions with their own perspective.
Les doy llamamo y me aggaron la pata!:-)
--
"The way I see it he said you just can't win it-everybody's in it for
their own gain you can't please em all, there's always somebody calling
you down! I was a free man in Paris I felt unfettered and alive, there was
nobody calling me up for favors-no one's future to decide." Joni Mitchell
"Free Man in Paris"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Michael Erlewine
Rog wrote:
>Astrology is perhaps the only science that defines individual
>perceptions
Responding to astrology being referred to as a science:
I am not picking on you Ron, but astrology, to the best of my
understanding, is not a science, at least as 'science' is defined by
society today. In my own expience, which is all I'm qualified to speak
about, astrology has been an alternative to the crude psychology in which I
was raised. As a child coming up in the 1950s, I was taught to see the mind
from the point of view of so-called modern psychology, with its masochists,
sadists, schizophrenics, and what not. Any mind set that differed was some
kind of neurosis.
So astrology gave me another take on the standard psychological view of
myself. I must say that I was relieved to have a second opinion. My point
is that, for me at least, astrology has provided me with an alternative to
psychology. In that regard it has been of very great value to me.
But I have been unable to use astrology as a science, in that I cannot
predict with any confidence things like the stock market, etc. So I am
somewhat uncomfortable when astrology is claimed to be a science, even a
'soft' science.
If we mean by 'soft science' that astrology deals with things of the mind
that are rising into public consciousness but have not yet been accepted as
facts, then that idea is intriguing at best. If that is what astrology is,
working with psychological facts that have not yet reached the level of
hard facts, then I might agree with you.
But this is kind of begging the question and redefining what a 'fact' is,
which I am somewhat inclined to do myself. Still, I believe that one of the
keys to claiming astrology is a science is whether it can predict events. I
just have not found that to be the case.
I have had the good fortune to know hundreds of astrologers (some of the
best in the business) and have not come upon any prediction methods that
any of them could (or would) pass on to me that would let me predict
events.
I don't feel that this fact reflects poorly on astrology, because I don't
use astrology to predict events. I use astrology as a way to better know
myself, a kind of vast metaphor for life based on the only real way we have
for measuring time, the movement of the planets.
We have mentioned oracles a number of time in this thread. If the fact that
astrology is also an oracle troubles some of you, I suggest you find out a
little more what an oracle is.
Thanks,
Michael Erlewine
Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
Roger L. Satterlee
Michael Erlewine wrote:
>
> Rog wrote:
> >Astrology is perhaps the only science that defines individual
> >perceptions
>
> Responding to astrology being referred to as a science:
>
> I am not picking on you Ron, but astrology, to the best of my
> understanding, is not a science, at least as 'science' is defined by
> But I have been unable to use astrology as a science, in that I cannot
> predict with any confidence things like the stock market, etc. So I am
> somewhat uncomfortable when astrology is claimed to be a science, even a
> 'soft' science.
>
> I don't feel that this fact reflects poorly on astrology, because I don't
> use astrology to predict events. I use astrology as a way to better know
> myself, a kind of vast metaphor for life based on the only real way we have
> for measuring time, the movement of the planets.
>
> We have mentioned oracles a number of time in this thread. If the fact that
> astrology is also an oracle troubles some of you, I suggest you find out a
> little more what an oracle is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Erlewine
> Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
Hi Micheal,
I, Rog, (or Ron if you wish...:) have been misquoted above--the
comment at the outset is that of William Roberts
<Astrologe...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>. The sentiment to which
you respond is best attributed to (Mary L.
Urquhart)<nstn...@fox.nstn.ca> who seems to insist that the word science
has some major art of astrology.
I am personally in complete agreement with your desciption of
astrology, and pleased to see here on alt.astrology. Unfortunately, it is
not widely accepted that astrology does not meet even the 'soft' science
requirements of Sociology, etc..
So, your mission, should you accept it, is to try to make your
(our) point better understood by a large number of persons here who need
a certain mechanistic world, one with predictable events, and 'causes'
which one would rather avoid or control in some small way.
William's reference to perception encourages me when I ignore the
's' word..heh..:)
To be perfectly clear, I do think of astrology as an oracle, and
its practice a being more the art of astrological perception than any
other term I can concoct at the moment...:)
Best wishes
Rog
(And you can pick on me anytime Mitch...:)
G1
Oh Kevin! You're cracking me up! I, too, in my amateur way - have
thought that I can just move my chart around a bit (like I do my
bathroom scale) to find the best possible interpretation of ME!
Result? Ultra-confusion now that I truly want to find the accurate
weight. Of me.
^5 Kevin!
G1
***********************************
"The bride stripped bare" Brian Ferry
Michael Erlewine
Roger,
I would love to have a discussion how astrology fits in as a 'soft' science
or 'hard' science. One thing is true is that there are many ways to use
astrology and different astrologica views. I know this well form about 30
years of meeting astrologers.
In the beginning, I couldn't wait to tell every astrologer I met about my
particular techniques, the ones that worked for me. I was (sometimes) less
enthusiastic about hearing their views, in particular when the techniques
appeared so 'farr out' that they were off my radar screen.
However, over the years I understoon that it was OK for other astrologers
to use techniques that for me would be pure craziness if I used them.
Watching this happen, time after time, was how I begin to understand that
astrology was in fact also an oracle and the various techniques the ritual
used to contact it. This is not a crazy thought on my part, but the result
of years of observation.
I am as technical as any astrologer, probably more so that most in that I
have written astrology programs for over 20 years -- about ever technique
you can imagine and some you can't.
I would love to discuss astrology and how scientific it is or isn't. How do
you see it?
William Roberts
It is good to see someone of your stature on this NG.
Religion, Science, Art, Physics, Psychology. . . .Aren’t all of these
parts of Astrology? Perhaps we are trying to put the whole into the
part and of course it just will not fit. Astrology defines the parts,
but no part can define the whole.
William Roberts
Thomas Seers
Michael Erlewine wrote:
>
> Rog wrote:
> >Astrology is perhaps the only science that defines individual
> >perceptions
>
> Responding to astrology being referred to as a science:
>
> I am not picking on you Ron, but astrology, to the best of my
> understanding, is not a science, at least as 'science' is defined by
> about, astrology has been an alternative to the crude psychology in which I
> was raised. As a child coming up in the 1950s, I was taught to see the mind
> from the point of view of so-called modern psychology, with its masochists,
> sadists, schizophrenics, and what not. Any mind set that differed was some
> kind of neurosis.
>
> So astrology gave me another take on the standard psychological view of
> myself. I must say that I was relieved to have a second opinion. My point
> is that, for me at least, astrology has provided me with an alternative to
> psychology. In that regard it has been of very great value to me.
>
> predict with any confidence things like the stock market, etc. So I am
> somewhat uncomfortable when astrology is claimed to be a science, even a
> 'soft' science.
>
> that are rising into public consciousness but have not yet been accepted as
> facts, then that idea is intriguing at best. If that is what astrology is,
> working with psychological facts that have not yet reached the level of
> hard facts, then I might agree with you.
>
> But this is kind of begging the question and redefining what a 'fact' is,
> which I am somewhat inclined to do myself. Still, I believe that one of the
> keys to claiming astrology is a science is whether it can predict events. I
> just have not found that to be the case.
>
> I have had the good fortune to know hundreds of astrologers (some of the
> best in the business) and have not come upon any prediction methods that
> any of them could (or would) pass on to me that would let me predict
> events.
>
> use astrology to predict events. I use astrology as a way to better know
> myself, a kind of vast metaphor for life based on the only real way we have
> for measuring time, the movement of the planets.
>
> We have mentioned oracles a number of time in this thread. If the fact that
> astrology is also an oracle troubles some of you, I suggest you find out a
> little more what an oracle is.
>
>
> Michael Erlewine
> Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
Sorry Michael,
As I state on my web page, Astrology is a Science, granted there are to
many opinions in most cases for it to work that way.
On 3/7/97 Pork bellies will be down on the day, silver will be
up and the market in general will close down. Bad news will that day
giving the shakes to many. Bad news will come from the telephone giants,
copper down.
Let us see, Thomas
--
*****************************************
Thomas Seers AMAFA
P. O. Box 2178
Antioch, TN 37011-2178
Tel (615) 366-0048 Fax (615) 366-7230
http://www.ncsn.net/belzar
*****************************************
Michael Erlewine
Thomas Seers <bel...@ncsn.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry Michael,
> As I state on my web page, Astrology is a Science, granted there are to
> many opinions in most cases for it to work that way.
> On 3/7/97 Pork bellies will be down on the day, silver will be
> up and the market in general will close down. Bad news will that day
> giving the shakes to many. Bad news will come from the telephone giants,
> copper down.
> Let us see, Thomas
Stating that astrology is a science on a web page does not make it so. As I
said in one of my previous posts, I have met many astrologers over the
years who claim predictive accuracy but were unable or unwilling to list
the methodology through which their predictions were arrived at.
It does me no good if "Pork bellies will be down on the day, silver will be
up and the market in general will close down." etc. unless you can show me
how to predict these too. If you would like to list your methods, I would
be glad to consider them. If only you know how to do this and you (1) won't
present it or (2) demand money, or (3) present it, but it is not rational,
then for the sake of our discussin here, it is of no help.
As I mentioned, I credit all astrologers with their own methods. Here I am
more interested in having a discussion about how astrology and science
interface or might interface, about how astrology is or is not a 'soft'
science, etc. You are of course free to change the discussion, but I am not
interested in getting into one of the personal-attack type discussions or
"my word againts your" type of things that appear here too often.
Thanks,
Michael Erlewine
Matrix Software (TheNewAge.com)
Crystal Pages
Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 1997, Siderealm wrote:
>> I think we are making this discussion of the Meridian system much more
>> complicated than it really is.
>> ...
>> Culmination is more important than ascendancy--more primary, simpler,
>> basic.
>Ah! So we've had two diffent opinions posted here today - one person for
>the primacy of the ASC, one for the MC.
>Interesting...
Hehe! Almost seems as if both must be equally important in the Grand Cosmic Scheme ;-)
One thing is for sure, the ascendant is a point that is more concrete (fixed), tangible, being the point on
the horizon, whereas the MC seems to vary depending on the latitude (given the same rising degree). Of course,
someone can say the same in reverse, although the reality of the horizon is kind of hard to deny. These are
just my musings and ponderings, not opinions, by the way <S>!
Ranjan
--
Crystal Pages (Vedic Astrology and Reiki)
P.O.B. 33035, 1974 Baseline Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K2C 3Y9
URL:http://www.cyberus.ca/~crystar/
Roger L. Satterlee
William Roberts wrote:
>
> Michael Erlewine wrote:
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > I would love to have a discussion how astrology fits in as a 'soft' science
> > or 'hard' science. One thing is true is that there are many ways to use
> > astrology and different astrologica views. I know this well form about 30
> > years of meeting astrologers.
> >
> > In the beginning, I couldn't wait to tell every astrologer I met about my
> > particular techniques, the ones that worked for me. I was (sometimes) less
> > enthusiastic about hearing their views, in particular when the techniques
> > appeared so 'farr out' that they were off my radar screen.
> >
> > However, over the years I understoon that it was OK for other astrologers
> > to use techniques that for me would be pure craziness if I used them.
> > Watching this happen, time after time, was how I begin to understand that
> > astrology was in fact also an oracle and the various techniques the ritual
> > used to contact it. This is not a crazy thought on my part, but the result
> > of years of observation.
> >
> > I am as technical as any astrologer, probably more so that most in that I
> > have written astrology programs for over 20 years -- about ever technique
> > you can imagine and some you can't.
> >
> > I would love to discuss astrology and how scientific it is or isn't. How do
> > you see it?
> >
> >
> > Michael Erlewine
> > Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
> >
> It is good to see someone of your stature on this NG.
>
> Religion, Science, Art, Physics, Psychology. . . .Aren’t all of these
> parts of Astrology? Perhaps we are trying to put the whole into the
> part and of course it just will not fit. Astrology defines the parts,
> but no part can define the whole.
>
> William Roberts
Rog comments:
I like your analogy, William; the 'all-of-the-above' catagory of answer
seems the right response to the question, "what is astrology?" My brief
experience with experimental techniques in psychology was enough to make me
realize that there is no 'scientific' way to descibe the complex situation that
astrology presents. No, astrology does not seem to "fit" into the narrow
confines of repeatable objective measurements. To that we all say--so what.
Most of the things we really enjoy (or really detest), the experiences that we
actually live and die for, are by enlarge subtle, complex, and completely
subjective.
To respond to Michael...I think astrology is, and will remain, an art
form. Astrology, like most grand ideas, seems more a discovered property of the
human psyche than an invention born of practical necessity. The fact that many
people can identify with the symbolism of astrology probably indicates it is
quite an ordinary human behavior--I mean astrology is a projection of our nature
and not a arbitrarilly devised dogma invented to facilitate some social
enterprise. It is my assumption that we are all 'doing astrology' but we are
not all conscious of it, and it is easy to see that not all people adopt the
vocabulary of astrology to make their generalizations, their analyses, and
predictions. In many ways astrology is an attempt to symbolize the
very routine activities of the average human mind, heart, soul, will, and so
forth.
Ironically, herein lies the essential weakness of astrological
prediction (now addressing the comments of Tom Seers): when we basically 'round
off' the several decimal points of our native intuition, so to speak, in order
to capsulize some part of psychical activity in the form of astrological
'expressions'--the planet/aspect/sign/house figurations--we therefore take a
short cut to an intutive conclusion--we birth a brain-child which may have
faired better if it had been allowed a more natural gestation period and path.
In applying our best logic to the (as yet inadequate) symbols constructions of
astrology, we make predictions based on greatly truncated and simplified
notions--the 'facts' of our complex intuitive understanding of life's most
prolific and subtle web stands of interdependent interactions. More often than
not, it is the 'knowing' which one derives from life experience than leaves us
most speechless: those moments when we best understand the complexity and the
'reasoning' of nature herself leaves us at a complete loss for symbols with
an adequate 'meaningfulness'(to which as Micheal has appropriately referred).
Like Jung's description of his thoughts concerning 'significance', I feel the
potential for symbols as they seem begging to form in my consciousness even
though they are not yet truly present. This achetypal quality of of astrology's
promising future developements is what keeps me most intrigued about the Art.
To refer back to the title of this thread, *all* astrological symbols
strike me as being at least as debatable as the notions of house divisions, and
all have my undivided attention, and devotion...:)
Rog
--
rog...@ix.netcom.com
11:53pm EDT 26Jul50 Elmira, NY 076W48 42N06
http://www.ix.netcom.com/~roger9/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Jon Dunn
I have the consistent experience that when I give friends and neighbors a
book such as "Asteroid Goddesses" or "Planets in Youth" and ask them to
pick their position from two adjacent ones, the accuracy rate is much,
much, higher than chance. I conclude from my OWN personal SCIENTIFIC
studies that astrology is a "science" at least in this limited (but
fundamental) sense. I honestly think that large scale studies would show
these significant results - and if I had the dough I wouldn't hesitate to
do/fund them myself.
I am not saying that "cookbook" interpretations are what astrology is all
about - but this kind of thing places more abstract synergies on a solid
theoretical basis.
Jon Dunn
On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Crystal Pages wrote:
> Hehe! Almost seems as if both must be equally important in the Grand
> Cosmic Scheme ;-)
>
> One thing is for sure, the ascendant is a point that is more concrete
> (fixed), tangible, being the point on the horizon, whereas the MC seems
> to vary depending on the latitude (given the same rising degree). Of
> course, someone can say the same in reverse, although the reality of the
> horizon is kind of hard to deny. These are just my musings and
> ponderings, not opinions, by the way <S>!
>
> Ranjan
This reminds me of something which I realized was lacking, at least in my
end of the previous discussion of MC vs ASC - and that is that just as the
zenith can be thought of as the source of the 10th house in both systems,
so also both systems' first house cusps ARE related to the HORIZON.
Riisto's use of the term (electrical ascendant, I think?) reminded me that
in the RA system, the first house is NOT independent of the horizon, but is
in fact the point where the horizon and the equator intercept, just as the
ASC is the point where the horizon and ecliptic do. So, again, in both
charts the 1st house cusp is the intersection of the horizon with the
chosen co-ordinate plane (equator vs ecliptic).
Jon Dunn
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Kevin Burk wrote:
>
> It's important to remember that the "Ascendant = 1st house cusp" is a
> relatively modern conceit, as are all of our "house systems." Classical
> astrology used whole sign houses where if, for example, the Ascendant
> was anywhere in Gemini, the 1st house would be the entire sign of
> Gemini, the 2nd House all of Cancer, etc. This can make for some
> interesting situations, as with my chart, where I have 29 Gemini rising,
> and the vast majority of my "1st House" is actually _Above_ the Horizon.
It is tempting for us moderns to say "oh, they were just doing things the
easy way" but it may not be so - if we accept the fact that early and late
Capricorn have something quite definite in common, and when a planet moves
over into early Aquarius it has a definitely different flavor, then it
doesn't seem so unreasonable to think of all of Capricorn as being somehow
"the same place". Then anything in the same sign as the ASC would be in
"the same place" as the ASC, and therefore in the first house, perhaps.
It doesn't seem arbitrary or primitive when looked at like that. I
remember when I first started studying astrology, I thought that the equal
house system was laughably simple and stupid. I never would have thought
that I would someday favor various versions of an "equal house" concept
above others.
William Roberts
William Roberts comments:
Science as it is used in the common vernacular I have assigned to
Capricorn and Saturn, which I consider only a part of Astrology. . . (to
explain my previous post)
For me Astrology is the study of points in time and space. No two
things can occupy the same point in both time and space. Therefore when
we use the word science are we discussing the science of when Pluto was
in Gemini in Paris, France or the science of when Pluto was in Leo in
Chicago, IL? With science (or anything else that exist) you must assign
it some point in time and space to give it any meaningful definition.
Therefor I concede that Astrology is not a science but possibly the
parent.
Michael Erlewine
> William Roberts comments:
>
> Science as it is used in the common vernacular I have assigned to
> Capricorn and Saturn, which I consider only a part of Astrology. . . (to
> explain my previous post)
>
> For me Astrology is the study of points in time and space. No two
> things can occupy the same point in both time and space. Therefore when
> we use the word science are we discussing the science of when Pluto was
> in Gemini in Paris, France or the science of when Pluto was in Leo in
> Chicago, IL? With science (or anything else that exist) you must assign
> it some point in time and space to give it any meaningful definition.
> Therefor I concede that Astrology is not a science but possibly the
> parent.
Can you expain what you mean by astrology being "possibly a parent?"
Risto Vartiainen
On Sat, 1 Mar 1997 14:10:24 -0800, Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org>
wrote:
>It is tempting for us moderns to say "oh, they were just doing things the
>easy way" but it may not be so - if we accept the fact that early and late
>Capricorn have something quite definite in common, and when a planet moves
>over into early Aquarius it has a definitely different flavor, then it
>doesn't seem so unreasonable to think of all of Capricorn as being somehow
>"the same place". Then anything in the same sign as the ASC would be in
>"the same place" as the ASC, and therefore in the first house, perhaps.
>
Yes -- especially if we intuit the signs to represent modified and
differentiated fields of energy of the Zodiac band, a la Rudhyar.
Sorry to bore you again with my personal experience, but here it
comes:
The reason I started using sign=house system from the AS sign was
simply because it seemed to be the most apparent way the planets
showed their "influence" in many cases. When starting to pay attention
to the matter, it seemed that the presence of a planet in a sign
*influences and emanates through the whole sign*. For instance, if a
person has 5 Cancer rising and Mars in 20 Cancer in the Placidus 2nd
house, the Mars "vibrations" modify the whole AS sign and it amounts
to a perception that the person indeed *appears* to have a "1st
house" Mars -- so obvious and to the foreground those characteristic
are.
This was not a matter of following some ancient theory but of
something that was forced upon my perception much *before* I had
heard any word about "house equals sign" system anywhere.
At this point Placidus and most other cusps started to seem quite
artificial constructs, dividing the whole sign into separate house
compartments, which did not seem to have any validity *in character
delineation* outside their own theoretical rationale and (dead) weight
of tradition. (I still believe they, and other quadrant system like
them, may have some validity in primary directions, for which use they
may have originally been intended.)
If there is anything to what is said above, it leads to an interesting
view, which might be one of the basic ideas behind sign=house system:
It is not only the planet that changes its expression according to the
sign it occupies, but ** the planet affects the sign also**.
-- Immerse a hot steel rod into a water container and it immediately
heats up the liquid. Find Mars in Cancer and observe how it heats up
the entire sign, which in a way, is a distinct container of a specific
type of energy.
Further refinement of this theory: the slower the planet is, the more
fundamental and basic vibratory tone it sets to the sign it occupies.
Thus, if one has Sun, Mars, and Saturn in Cancer, it is the Saturn as
the most distant and slowest planet that sets the fundamental tone to
the sign. Consequently, this kind of person may seem to have
distinctively Capricornian (instead of "normal" Cancerian)
characteristics marked in his character, because the presence of
Saturn in his Sun sign transforms the vibratory tone of the sign to it
its own kind and quality. (Here I loosely link together Saturn and
Capricornian characteristics.)
Anyone else ever weighed experimentally these different approaches?
Risto Vartiainen
Michael Erlewine
Risto Vartiainen wrote quite a long post which I won't try to reproduce
here:
First I want to send my greetings to you Risto. Long time, no contact!
I won't comment directly to your post because your approach is enough
different from my own that it is best just to let it stand as it is.
I too have spent a lot of time with house systems, although for the most
part this was quite a few years ago. At one point, long before computers
could be much help, I created huge notebooks of charts showing how a group
of individuals looked in a variety of house systems. It took a long, long
time to draw out or mark up all these charts. I was trying to decide which
house system was the 'best' for me. I guess I tended (at that time) to
favor the Campanus system.
When I was done with my exercise, what I found out there was no one system
better than the others, but that each house system had its own view and
qualities. Each was good for bringing out certain qualites while
suppressing others -- alternate views.
Later, when I programmed all of these house systems into the home computer
(1977), I was able to confirm this point of view. Still later, I programmed
the house systems and projected them graphically (via computer) onto the
starfields in which they belong. This is a very powerful way to study house
systems because you get a 3-dimensional view of what you are taking about.
It is unfortunate that I have not released some of those programs so that
others could see at a glance the effects of mapping houses one way or
another.
I guess the real point of my writing here is this: After a lot of
exploration with house systems, I kind of wandered out of them altogether.
For one, I became interested in all of the other coordinate systems that
interfaced with the zodiac to produce the various nodes and points we
astrologers use.
For example, we all bandy the term 'ascendant' about, but many asrologers
do not realize that this point is a node that represents the intersection
of two independent planes of reference, the zodiac and the local horizon.
In other words, the ascendant is brought to you by courtesy of the plane of
the local horizon. It takes two planes to create a node and most
astrological points are nodes of one sort or another. However, all we ever
hear about is the zodiac. Astrologers as a group ignore the other planes.
After that point, I began to use what I termed the 'Local Space Chart" and
map where before I had used various house systems. The local space chart is
just a division of the local horizon into sections of equal azimuth and is
not directly referencing the zodiac.
Risto, the concept that you point out of the longer a planet stays in a
sign or degree of the zodiac, the more marked its effect (even in kind) was
(I believe) first developed by Grant Lewi in his book "The Astrology of the
Millions". I still feel this is the (to me) best single book on astrology
that I have ever read and I have a library of thousands of astrology books
and magazines.
This is getting long, so I will stop. I would be interested in hearing how
others have dealt with the question of houses and could have some more to
add later myself.
Thanks.
-- Michael Erlewine
Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
William Roberts
Michael Erlewine wrote:
>
> > William Roberts comments:
> >
> > Science as it is used in the common vernacular I have assigned to
> > Capricorn and Saturn, which I consider only a part of Astrology. . . (to
> > explain my previous post)
> >
> > For me Astrology is the study of points in time and space. No two
> > things can occupy the same point in both time and space. Therefore when
> > we use the word science are we discussing the science of when Pluto was
> > in Gemini in Paris, France or the science of when Pluto was in Leo in
> > Chicago, IL? With science (or anything else that exist) you must assign
> > it some point in time and space to give it any meaningful definition.
> > Therefor I concede that Astrology is not a science but possibly the
> > parent.
>
>
>
> Michael Erlewine
> Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
When mankind first crawled out of the caves (or sea) his first awareness had to
be daylight from dark, the seasons, cycles of the moon etc. (Planetary
movement relating to human life.) If this was the first then all others were
children of this astrology - art - science or whatever you wish to label it. (a
rose by any other name is still a rose)
William Roberts
Risto Vartiainen
On Sat, 1 Mar 1997 12:38:33 -0800, Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org>
wrote:
>> Ranjan
>
>This reminds me of something which I realized was lacking, at least in my
>end of the previous discussion of MC vs ASC - and that is that just as the
>zenith can be thought of as the source of the 10th house in both systems,
>so also both systems' first house cusps ARE related to the HORIZON.
>Riisto's use of the term (electrical ascendant, I think?) reminded me that
>in the RA system, the first house is NOT independent of the horizon, but is
>in fact the point where the horizon and the equator intercept, just as the
>ASC is the point where the horizon and ecliptic do. So, again, in both
>charts the 1st house cusp is the intersection of the horizon with the
>chosen co-ordinate plane (equator vs ecliptic).
The term I used was Equatorial Ascendant, which is a term Michael
Erlewine prefers over the more common "East Point".
Electrical Ascendant was originally Edward Johndro's term for the
chart angle we now know as Anti-Vertex, which name was later coined by
Charles Jayne.
BTW, this Equatorial Ascendant / East Point ought to be a very
important point, indeed, for the reason that it is the intersection
of *three* important planes: the Equator, the Horizon, and the Prime
Vertical. I think much of the power usually assigned to the AS point
should be allotted to this point.
Risto Vartiainen
>
Jon Dunn
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Risto Vartiainen wrote:
First, thank you for clarifying.
> The term I used was Equatorial Ascendant, which is a term Michael
> Erlewine prefers over the more common "East Point".
equator x horizon.
> Electrical Ascendant was originally Edward Johndro's term for the
> chart angle we now know as Anti-Vertex, which name was later coined by
> Charles Jayne.
pvertical x ecliptic?
> BTW, this Equatorial Ascendant / East Point ought to be a very
> important point, indeed,
these are two different points, though...
> for the reason that it is the intersection
> of *three* important planes: the Equator, the Horizon, and the Prime
> Vertical. I think much of the power usually assigned to the AS point
> should be allotted to this point.
only rarely will these 3 planes all come together at the same point...
> Risto Vartiainen
eh?
If of course you meant "these two usually near-to-each-other points..."
Thanks.
*****************************************************************************
Mo/Dy/Yr Sun Moon Merc Venu Mars Jupi Satu Uran Nept Plut
3/ 3/97 12Pi57 26Sg44 5Pi53 5Pi24 1Li47. 9Aq20 6Ar52 6Aq44 29Cp01 5Sg35
Thomas Seers
>
> Michael Erlewine
> Matrix Software/AMG (TheNewAge.com)
Hello Michael,
Just for starters, PC WEEK DIRECT
AT&T shares dip on
earnings projection
I stated bad news from the telephone giants, well this is only Monday
and the first article is printed leading up to Friday. Lucky guess, is
normaly the response when right, all hell breaks out when wrong though.
Lili4love
your response was not boring. i hit print.
thanks
peace,
lili
Risto Vartiainen
Greetings to you also, Michael! I remember our last meeting with joy.
It is good to have you present here!
Inspired by your work, I retraced some of your steps also, in my
time, going through house systems, researching Local Space and Prime
Vertical charts (not so much helio configurations, though), and yes, I
have even mapped my natal points and birth Horizon onto the stars. And
as I have mentioned, I have quite seriously used the Horizon Houses
(your term) with near-polar birth charts, because they are very
valuable here, providing very usable quadrant houses of a sort.
I have read "Astrology for the Millions", too, and it has been an
important book for me. However, I think Lewi was referring to
something a bit different than I did in my post. Wasn't he saying
there really are no qualitative difference between the natures of
planets, the apparent differences being only functions of their
differing speeds? According to him, *merely* because the transits of
the outer planets last longer (and are thus more intensive), their
effects are of different kind compared with faster moving transits.
-- Well, I equated slow motion to power, also, but in the context of a
theory that the slowest planet in a sign modifies the fundamental
tone of the sign to something different. For example, if Saturn is
the slowest body in a sign, it lends some of its intrinsic quality
(which Lewi did not believe in, but most astrologers do) to the whole
sign.
I may have misunderstood what you have said in your previous posts,
Michael, but it sounds that you do not think there is much (any?)
"objectivity" in astrological techniques. One astrologer's approaches
look like foolishness to another.
I find it hard to accept, however, that no intersubjective
verification process could be established even among astrologers. If a
technique is valid and works, one should be able to transmit it to at
least some others who are willing to go through the process of
learning to use it. Isn't this one condition for the development of
even a soft science? Although I see some value in "if it works for me,
it is true enough" attitude, I am afraid it eventually leads to a kind
of solipsism. One great test for an astrological technique might be
whether I can make it *with consistency* reflect happenings and
processes in other people's lives, too, not only in my own.
I am getting too far from the subject title here and it is better to
continue this discussion in another thread...
Risto Vartiainen
Risto Vartiainen
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:50:10 -0800, Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org>
wrote:
>
>> Electrical Ascendant was originally Edward Johndro's term for the
>> chart angle we now know as Anti-Vertex, which name was later coined by
>> Charles Jayne.
>
>pvertical x ecliptic?
Yes, in the East.
>
>> BTW, this Equatorial Ascendant / East Point ought to be a very
>> important point, indeed,
>
>these are two different points, though...
OK, but I think there is some confused terminology here, because the
definition of the East Point seems to vary. Some place it on the
Ecliptic, calling the Ecliptic x East Meridian the EP (this is the
first cusp in the Meridian house system), then others say the Horizon
x Prime Vertical is the EP, so terminologies differ.
>
>> for the reason that it is the intersection
>> of *three* important planes: the Equator, the Horizon, and the Prime
>> Vertical. I think much of the power usually assigned to the AS point
>> should be allotted to this point.
>
>only rarely will these 3 planes all come together at the same point...
Are you sure, Jon? The Prime Vertical intersects the Horizon at the
east point of the Horizon and that is also the point where the
Horizon and the Equator intersect. So, we have three planes
intersecting at the same point (the East Point??). (I was not talking
about the Ecliptic or its intersections here.) Also, the nearest
diagram I could find about this was in Erlewine's "Astrophysical
Directions" (p. 13), which seems to confirm what I say. If I am wrong,
please point out where.
>
>eh?
>
>If of course you meant "these two usually near-to-each-other points..."
I lost you. What points are you referring to here?
Thanks
Risto Vartiainen
Michael Erlewine
Risto,
There are some useful definitions for some of the terms you are discussing
in Astro*Index>
Astro*Index Encyclopedia (an online encyclopedia of astrology
http://205.186.189.2/cgi-win/elib.exe?sql=1&orig=/root/MS/MS_Resources.html
Here are a number of useful astrological resources that are part of Matrix
Space (TheNewAge.com).
Celebrity Astro*Search (30,000 names)
http://205.186.189.2/ms/ms_astro_search.html
Astro*Outline (overview of astrology)
http://205.186.189.2/ms/MS_Outline.html
Astrology 101 (introduction to astrology
http://205.186.189.2/ms/MS_Booklet.html
Online Astrology Bibliography (thousands of astrology books listed)
http://205.186.189.2/cgi-win/hclib.exe?tp=1&orig=/root/ms/ms_Resources.html
Astro*Address Book (name & address database)
http://205.186.189.2/ms/AstroAddress.html
Astro*Message Boards
http://205.186.189.2/NA/NA_Astrology.html
Jon Dunn
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Risto Vartiainen wrote:
> OK, but I think there is some confused terminology here, because the
> definition of the East Point seems to vary. Some place it on the
> Ecliptic, calling the Ecliptic x East Meridian the EP (this is the
> first cusp in the Meridian house system), then others say the Horizon
> x Prime Vertical is the EP, so terminologies differ.
Risto,
I was thinking it through later and realized that this triple
point did in fact exist and I had probably gotten confused. Your
observation that "East Point" is used to mean different things is the
probable explanation. Sorry and thanks.
*****************************************************************************
Mo/Dy/Yr Sun Moon Merc Venu Mars Jupi Satu Uran Nept Plut
3/ 4/97 13Pi57 10Cp44 7Pi41 6Pi39 1Li28. 9Aq33 6Ar59 6Aq47 29Cp03 5Sg35
Anny van Berckel
Hallo all,
Op 23 Feb 97 om 12:27 schreef Jon Dunn o.a. aan All:
JD> @REPLYTO 61:100/0 UUCP
JD> @REPLYADDR jon...@speakeasy.org
JD> @GID GIGO+ sn 120 at idn vsn 0.99.970109
JD> From: Jon Dunn <jon...@speakeasy.org>
JD> @Newsgroups: alt.astrology
JD> @Subject: Re: House Division?
JD> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 12:27:37 -0800
JD> Organization: Speakeasy Cafe
JD> @Lines: 44
JD> @Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.970223...@eve.speakeasy.org>
JD> @References: <01bc19fa$d2d19440$9a90...@cm1.syr.servtech.com>
JD> <19970215030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
JD> <199702211...@zetnet.co.uk> <330F3D...@alaska.net>
JD> @Nntp-Posting-Host: eve.speakeasy.org
JD> @Mime-Version: 1.0
JD> @Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
JD> @In-Reply-To: <330F3D...@alaska.net>
JD> @Xref: news.idn.nl alt.astrology:122593
JD> Why I advocate the seldom-seen RA/equatorial meridian system (though not
JD> enthusiastically):
JD> At the equator, the visible cycle of the planets is that they rise in the
JD> east, culminate overhead, and then set in the west (more or less). Most
JD> house systems used at the equator reflect this pretty well - the MC is
JD> pretty much square the ASC and the other cusps tend to fall at equal
JD> divisions.
JD> At the north pole, the visible cycle of the planets is that they stay at
a
JD> particular angle above the horizon and circle around you, like planes
JD> waiting to land. In 24 hours, the relationship of a given planet to the
JD> horizon changes very little. Every actual location will be somewhat off
of
JD> the actual pole, and then the daily cycle of each planet is that is
JD> slightly higher at one point and then closest to the horizon 12 hours
JD> later.
JD> In both cases, what the observer notices is that each planet travels
JD> around in a little circle parallel to the equator. If we project all
JD> planets & points onto the equator (using RA instead of ecliptical
JD> longitude), this measures the daily motion of planets the most
relevantly.
JD> Additionally, if we use the RAMC as the 10th house cusp, then the planet
JD> truly culminates, or veers closest to the zenith overhead, when it
crosses
JD> this point.
JD> So, that's it: use RA for each planet, and then equal houses from the
RAMC
JD> as 10th cusp. A planet moves through each of these houses in almost
JD> EXACTLY 2 hours each, crossing into the first house 6 hours before
JD> culmination.
JD> This system ignores the horizon, which is the factor which causes house
JD> systems to fail at different latitudes. The problem, of course, is that
JD> the horizon (and ascendant) are seen by most to be especially
JD> important....
JD> So, I often think in terms of two different charts - the conventional
JD> equal house system and the above equatorial/equal system.
I enjoyed this, while I practice this division for a long time. The point 90
degr MC is the Eastpoint I discovered once I bought a computerprogram and is
avaiable in most (?) computerprograms. In Hamburg Alfred Witte/Lefeld studied
this housesystem. In accordance to Lefeld's book (Techniek) of the Uranian
Astrologie, the native is greatly influenced by the placement of the Ascendant
(in XIth, XIIth, Ist, IInd sometimes close to IIIrd) As we all know the nature
of these houses, you can presume the nature/colouring of the ascendant qua
constellation, but I found out though, that serious illness has mostly her
background from the Ascendant's constellation. So I would not wipe out this
point in your study. I read once about the Taurus influence in case of
leukaemia and found out it applied to a lady (TaurusAscendant, I knew, whom I
have in study. She asked for a chart. Progressed good aspects indicated that
the illness is in very slow motion even stationair now; thanks to the
homeopathy.
Groetjes!
Anny
internet: anny.van...@astronet.idn.nl
---
Siderealm
Hi Risto,
You said::
>Electrical Ascendant was originally Edward Johndro's term for the
>chart angle we now know as Anti-Vertex, which name was later coined by
>Charles Jayne.
This statement is in error. Go back and read "The Earth in the Heavens."
by L. Edward Johndro and you will find that the Electrical Ascendant was
very different from the Anti-Vertex. The Johndro Locality Chart was
developed to reflect the electro-magnetic deviation and wandering of the
magnetic poles. For any particular Longitude the distance in arc from the
Sun to the Electrical Ascendant is nearly always the same. The rough
formula was to take the Sun's position in right ascension, add the
longitude of the location to it and then adjust this further by adding an
ayanamsha adjustment( which was 29 degrees and 10 minutes in 1930 and
which increased in a regular increment yearly) add all of these together
and then modulo 360 and look up the resulting degree in the tables of
right asc in Dalton's Table of Housesand then look up the ascendant at
the appropriate latitude.
The result of this procedure was that if you were born on the east coast
of the US then your Sun would sit in the eleventh house no matter what day
you were born. If you moved to the west coast of the US, the Sun in your
Johndro Chart would be near the Ascendant. This would be true for anyone
regardless of day or time of birth because time was not a factor.
Generally people who used these charts would correct the moon position if
they had an accurate time, and round off the planet's places to the
nearest degrees.
Although I don't own the book any longer I am sure that Michael Erlewine
has it in his library and maybe can look up the yearly incremental
increase of the offset from 1930 and share it with us if we ask him very
nicely!
On another item: Can the the ancients use of whole sign houses be based
upon necessity when one's view of the horizon is blocked by mountains, and
rough estimations are in order? I live on a hill looking west at the San
Francisco Bay Bridge. I've never seen the eastern horizon since I moved
to Berkeley. The coastal range that my house abuts obscures anything that
rises until it reaches 40 to 60 degrees. If I was an ancient Indian
astrologer here I would be more inclined to based houses on culmination
rather than ascendancy due to this very real circumstantial necessity.
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
Earl Baker
In article <19970306214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Siderealm <side...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>On another item: Can the the ancients use of whole sign houses be based
>upon necessity when one's view of the horizon is blocked by mountains, and
>rough estimations are in order? I live on a hill looking west at the San
>Francisco Bay Bridge. I've never seen the eastern horizon since I moved
>to Berkeley. The coastal range that my house abuts obscures anything that
>rises until it reaches 40 to 60 degrees. If I was an ancient Indian
>astrologer here I would be more inclined to based houses on culmination
>rather than ascendancy due to this very real circumstantial necessity.
Could they just climb to the top of the hill and make observations
from there?
--
__________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
Siderealm
From: dun...@skypoint.com (Earl Baker)
Date: 6 Mar 1997 21:17:54 -0600
Earl Baker's response to Michael Jordan:
>>Could they just climb to the top of the hill and make observations
>>from there?
(referring to this post)
>In article <19970306214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Siderealm <side...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>On another item: Can the the ancients use of whole sign houses be based
>upon necessity when one's view of the horizon is blocked by mountains,
and
>rough estimations are in order? I live on a hill looking west at the San
>Francisco Bay Bridge. I've never seen the eastern horizon since I moved
>to Berkeley. The coastal range that my house abuts obscures anything
that
>rises until it reaches 40 to 60 degrees. If I was an ancient Indian
>astrologer here I would be more inclined to based houses on culmination
>rather than ascendancy due to this very real circumstantial necessity.
Michael responds to Earl:
(pretending you are not pulling my leg!)
Noting that you are signing on in the midwest I can understand your
question. In 95% of the 11 western states there is always a mountain
range to the east that blocks visual access to the horizon. From where I
live in the SF Bay area I would need to travel all the way to Pueblo,
Colorado to get a clear view of the horizon unobstructed. If you are in
the Losangeles area you have to travel all the way to Portales, New
Mexico. In Seattle the trek is not quite so bad,--only a trip to Great
Falls, Montana would do it. We're talking many miles here, to paraphrase,
"until you have walked 500 miles in these moccasins don't criticise my
flat feet!!"
And remember, this is with modern cartography to aid me. If I was a
Shaman like Ishi I wouldn't know where the Eastern slope of the Rockies
was. I would be forced to assume that mountains were the horizon and that
they were of different shapes and sizes. I would give them personalities
and maybe even consider them dieties in their own right. If it was me I
would devise a system that fit the world that I knew. That's what they
did. Many ancient and modern people here in the west live in river
valleys which have high mountains on both sides. As a matter of after
dinner pursuit at night we go out and look up at the stars with only a 60
to 75 degree window of viewing opportunity--directly overhead. If a
Capricorn Moon (sidereal of tropical) is rising I won't see it until
Pisces or Aries rise, get the picture? It disappears when Gemini or
Cancer rises.
Now what Is interesting are the studies of ancient peoples and their
varied cosmologies depending upon the lands they grew up in.
Astro-Ethnology. These studies point to the diversity of astrologies in
the world and the evidence links native environment to cosmological
genesis. The Persians had nice oceans of sand to look out over. They had
horizons. The Greeks who followed them and the Romans who followed them
had the Mediterranean to look out at. The Druids and the swaggering
Londonaires had the North sea and the English channel to look out over.
The majority of France is flat to the East of Paris. These are all
Ascendant worshipping cultures in ancient and modern days.
And where is the Midheaven placed as the most important angle in Europe?
Germany, Austria, Switzerland. All rigorously mountainous regions!!
My point is to conclude that where ever you are you can find the
Midheaven. But you have to be in particularly strategic places to see the
Horizon. This is how these different astrologies evolved.
Due to refraction, visually pinpointing the exact degree of right
ascension of an Ascendant is a very difficult task even at sea or in the
desert. I must conclude that the Ascendant came much, much later than
the Midheaven probably during the beginnings of abstract mathematics and
coinciding with writing. What do you think about that?
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
Risto Vartiainen
On 6 Mar 1997 21:48:46 GMT, side...@aol.com (Siderealm) wrote:
>Hi Risto,
>
>You said::
>>Electrical Ascendant was originally Edward Johndro's term for the
>>chart angle we now know as Anti-Vertex, which name was later coined by
>>Charles Jayne.
>
>This statement is in error. Go back and read "The Earth in the Heavens."
>by L. Edward Johndro and you will find that the Electrical Ascendant was
>very different from the Anti-Vertex. The Johndro Locality Chart was
>developed to reflect the electro-magnetic deviation and wandering of the
>magnetic poles. For any particular Longitude the distance in arc from the
>Sun to the Electrical Ascendant is nearly always the same. The rough
>formula was to take the Sun's position in right ascension, add the
>longitude of the location to it and then adjust this further by adding an
>ayanamsha adjustment( which was 29 degrees and 10 minutes in 1930 and
>which increased in a regular increment yearly) add all of these together
>and then modulo 360 and look up the resulting degree in the tables of
>right asc in Dalton's Table of Housesand then look up the ascendant at
>the appropriate latitude.
Michael,
It seems you are confusing Johndro's Locality Chart techniques with
his theory on magnetic and electrostatic local angles (AS and
AntiVertex, respectively). See his article in Charles Jayne's
"Cosmecology Bulletin" no.7 (March 1978), which is a reprint from
"Modern Astrology" (1950) in which Johndro states that "E ascendant
is the point on the ecliptic where the east spoke (of Prime
Vertcal)... intersects it". Or, see "Recent Advances in Natal
Astrology" (1977) by Geoffrey Dean, pp. 377-378 on "history" of the
Vertex and its derivation by Johndro.
Thanks for your comments, though.
Risto Vartiainen
Michael Erlewine
Risto and Michael:
Not wanting to interfere here, but just to add some definitions to help
clarify:
Johndro's terms:
M Ascendant (also called Magnetic Ascendant) = Conventional ascendant
E Ascendant (also called Electric/Electrical Ascendant) = AntiVertex
Charles Jayne states in his book "Introduction to Locality Astrology"
(which was, by the way dedicated to me) that "The house system associated
with the azimuth positions is the little-used horizontal houses system
which has the Vertex as the cusp of the seventh house and the antivertex –
Johndro's electrical Ascendant – at the cusp of its first house."
Charles Jayne states in Cosmecology Bulletin (#7, page 53, March 1978)
that "Johndro's E Ascendant is the AntiVertex. "
Some Definitions (that might be useful)"
Vertex – The intersection of the Prime Vertical and the Ecliptic, to the
West. This is a node or zodiac point.
AntiVertex – The intersection of the Prime Vertical and the Ecliptic, to
the East. This is a node or zodiac point.
East Point -- Where the Prime Vertical and the Horizon intersect to the
East. This is not an ecliptic or zodiac point (by definition), although an
ecliptic intersect (right-angle to ecliptic) can be calculated using
standard spherical trig.
Equatorial Ascendant – The intersection of the ecliptic (to the East) and
a great circle the East and West horizon points AND the North and South
Poles of the Earth (not the Zentih).
Thanks,
Michael Erlewine, Matrix Software (TheNewAge.com)
Michael Erlewine
Michael Erlewine
Siderealm
>Michael Erlewine's comments:
>Johndro's terms:
>M Ascendant (also called Magnetic Ascendant) = Conventional ascendant
>E Ascendant (also called Electric/Electrical Ascendant) = AntiVertex
Michael.
I believe that you mean to say that these are Jayne's words on Johndro.
As I understand it the terms "Vertex" and "Anti-vertex" are terms coined
by Chuck and not by Ed. What were the Ascendants of Ed's Johndro Charts
as defined by Ed? What were Ed's words on the subject? What was a
Johndro Ascendant... What was a Johndro Midheaven...I'd be curious to
know since their construction effectively stopped the Sun in the sky.
What I mean is that in the Johndro charts of 1930 the Sun was on the
midheaven (regardless of the day of the year) on a great circle of
Longitude which contained Sydproven, Greenland and Rio de Janeiro. This
has nothing to do with the vertex at all. It is something different.
What is it? Any clues?
I always thought that this had something do do with magnetic wandering
combined with solar wind because the Sun's geographic position did precess
slowly with this scheme. Any help and clarification? They do work for
some reason.
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
Earl Baker
Siderealm <side...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>From: dun...@skypoint.com (Earl Baker)
>
>>>Could they just climb to the top of the hill and make observations
>>>from there?
>>
>>On another item: Can the the ancients use of whole sign houses be based
>>upon necessity when one's view of the horizon is blocked by mountains,
>and
>>rough estimations are in order? I live on a hill looking west at the San
>>Francisco Bay Bridge. I've never seen the eastern horizon since I moved
>>to Berkeley. The coastal range that my house abuts obscures anything
>that
>>rises until it reaches 40 to 60 degrees. If I was an ancient Indian
>>astrologer here I would be more inclined to based houses on culmination
>>rather than ascendancy due to this very real circumstantial necessity.
>
>Michael responds to Earl:
> (pretending you are not pulling my leg!)
Nope, just a humble inquiry.
> Noting that you are signing on in the midwest I can understand your
>question. In 95% of the 11 western states there is always a mountain
Hey that is great research on your part. Most people never heard of
a whois command. But why employ it for tired old flyover snobbery?
>range to the east that blocks visual access to the horizon. From where I
>live in the SF Bay area I would need to travel all the way to Pueblo,
>Colorado to get a clear view of the horizon unobstructed. If you are in
When I lived in San Francisco all I had to do was go 50 miles to the
valley and stand in the bottom of it. There are spots where all one can see
are flat fields to the horizon. I also was able to get a good long view of
the sky from the top of Mt. Diablo, which I suppose an ancient bay area
astrologer could have hiked up in less than a day, though the trails we
have now make it easier. I could also get in a boat on a rare fogless
day and go 25 miles out to sea and turn east. Fisherman do it
every morning before sunrise :)
>the Losangeles area you have to travel all the way to Portales, New
>Mexico. In Seattle the trek is not quite so bad,--only a trip to Great
>Falls, Montana would do it. We're talking many miles here, to paraphrase,
>"until you have walked 500 miles in these moccasins don't criticise my
>flat feet!!"
I think you exaggerate a great deal; and I think the aforementioned
Hindu astrologers could have trekked to the east coast of India if it
was important to do so.
[snip]
>And where is the Midheaven placed as the most important angle in Europe?
>Germany, Austria, Switzerland. All rigorously mountainous regions!!
>
>My point is to conclude that where ever you are you can find the
>Midheaven. But you have to be in particularly strategic places to see the
>Horizon. This is how these different astrologies evolved.
>
>Due to refraction, visually pinpointing the exact degree of right
>ascension of an Ascendant is a very difficult task even at sea or in the
>desert. I must conclude that the Ascendant came much, much later than
>the Midheaven probably during the beginnings of abstract mathematics and
>coinciding with writing. What do you think about that?
Interesting but I'd like to hear it from more than once source.
I have lost the original point here; the MC was used first so therefore..
?? I hear this from western siderealists--the appeal to ancient authority.
If it's older it's better, it's right, we should do it that way. Well,
I don't see that as very compelling. I'm willing to believe that even
if the ASC came into use later, that it could well be a meaningful
starting point for a chart, even more meaningful or "correct" than
the MC. Same with the tropical/sidereal argument. I don't see
astrology as locked into place at its supposed moment(s) of discovery.
Also I'd like to hear from other astrologers who study ancient history
on the subject. Astrology doesn't have peer review so I take it all
with a grain of salt. :) It's good of you to share your ideas; it would
be nice if we had a forum to critically review such things. I don't have
the time, background, etc. to do so but thanks for the conversation.
Michael Erlewine
Michael Jordan writes:
> I believe that you mean to say that these are Jayne's words on Johndro.
> As I understand it the terms "Vertex" and "Anti-vertex" are terms coined
> by Chuck and not by Ed. What were the Ascendants of Ed's Johndro Charts
> as defined by Ed? What were Ed's words on the subject? What was a
> Johndro Ascendant... What was a Johndro Midheaven...I'd be curious to
> know since their construction effectively stopped the Sun in the sky.
> What I mean is that in the Johndro charts of 1930 the Sun was on the
> midheaven (regardless of the day of the year) on a great circle of
> Longitude which contained Sydproven, Greenland and Rio de Janeiro. This
> has nothing to do with the vertex at all. It is something different.
> What is it? Any clues?
>
> I always thought that this had something do do with magnetic wandering
> combined with solar wind because the Sun's geographic position did
precess
> slowly with this scheme. Any help and clarification? They do work for
> some reason.
I must admit that I am new to this newsgroup because for years I could not
get newgroup service and then when I did, it was not stable. Now that I
have found a stable news server, I have had a chance to look around this
newsgroup.
I am glad to see serious discussion, but do not understand how personal
attacks have to creep in. For example, I do not understand why you feel
that anything is gained by using the names 'Chuck' and 'Ed' when referring
to Charles Jayne and L. Edward Johndro. It seems to me to lack respect for
them and their work, which is what is being discussed here. If there is a
reason to do this, please advise. I am interested in discussing
astrological ideas, but am not interested in argument for argument's sake.
I don't have time to explain here Johndro's techniques in detail, which
often were (as you seem to understand) quite complex and sometimes
difficult to understand. In brief, Johndro used a modified birth chart that
was built around geographic locations that referenced a point on the earth
that he felt corresponded to zero degrees of tropical Aries. According to
the literature, it seems he may have changed his fiducial point (or
whatever we may call it here) over the years.
The result of all this is that he had methods to derive the locality MC and
various other points, including what you folks have been discussing here,
the Magnetic Ascendant (M Ascendant) and the Electric Ascendant (E
Ascendant). I don't believe there is much argument over that.
I never met Johndro (in person or by letter), but my friend and colleague
Charles Jayne did. They both were interested in locality astrology (as am
I) and discussed that subject in detail. It seems that both Johndro and
Jayne became interested in the intersection of the Prime Vertical to the
ecliptic around the same time, Jayne from the western end (Vertex) and
Johndro from the eastern end (E Ascendant). This fact is well documented in
Jayne's writing.
Aside from the two main books by Johndro, "The Earth in the Heavens" and
"The Star," he had significant detail on this matter in the magazine Modern
Astrology (Nov. 1950). Some of this material was subsequently reprinted by
Jayne in his Cosmecology Bulletin in issues #5 (Dec 1976) and issue #7 (Mar
1978).
Since this was during the time that Jayne and I were friends, I can
remember hearing about all of this a number of time. I hope this is
helpful.
Jon Dunn
Michael,
It certainly is helpful to get you input from your direct experience.
Unfortunately, even the best of us here can become frazzled by the
unfriendly carnival atmosphere which can prevail at times. Thanks again.
-jon dunn
*****************************************************************************
Mo/Dy/Yr Sun Moon Merc Venu Mars Jupi Satu Uran Nept Plut
3/ 9/97 18Pi57 25Pi16 16Pi59 12Pi54 29Vi45.10Aq37 7Ar35 7Aq01 29Cp12 5Sg36.
Siderealm
Michael Erlewine,
I meant no disrespect by referring to those gentlemen by their nicknames.
I was mentored into this business by a guy named Al who was constantly
reminding me that all astrologers tend to take themselves too seriously
with the result that meaningful discourse is often hampered by distance
which can reduce information bandwidth to nil.
When I met Mr. Jayne in 1972 I was very impressed by his reputation but
sadly I could comprehend very little of his discourse. He seemed to be
trapped into preaching to the choir. One had to be at his level to
understand him and in the limited time I had with him it was a frustrating
experience coping with his impatience. He was truly a dapper gentleman,
I never saw him without a suit and tie, and he was always smiling as he
talked about Midas, Persephone, Lion, Osiris, Maat and the traditional
Uranians. I found this to be the most easily accessible part of his work
for me.
The brilliant Mr. Johndro was already dead in 1972 and the bulk of his
research was burned by another astrologer as was the practice then when a
practitioner was doing sensitive political astrology. Johndro was, I am
told by Morrison, Diefenbaker's astrologer when he was the prime minister
of Canada. In my opinion Johndro was the Nikola Tesla of astrology and had
his work survived we would have talked of nothing else in this forum. My
regret is that I never met the man. I am glad that two books and bits and
pieces survive but as Morrison told me, "that was just the tip of the
iceberg."
I admit I am guilty of a rather clumsy attempt to humanize these dieties
in the hope of opening access to their body of work. Another tactical
method is in order. Door open, point taken!
I too am new at this form of communication in alt.astrology and it often
takes on the atmosphere of a board of directors meeting of commercial
interests rather than a discussion of astrology. Many people view this as
commercial territory to be mined rather than a serious and often heated
debate of astrological issues. There are separate places for
advertisement but who wants to read only ads? We are stuck with this and
are forced to dig beneath the surface of commentary here and discern sub
rosa motivations all too often. Some have nothing to add and are only
here to heckle. It is their nature.
Moving on:
When I met Dane Rudyhar at the same conference (Dallas 1972) we were
stuck in an elevator at the Fairmont. We had a real conversation. Dane
was very personable and enjoyed the give and take of conversation.
Listening was more important to him than talking. I got to meet many many
astrologers when they visited the offices of the AFA when it was behind
the Library of Congress. Just as in any other field of work there were
some winners and there were losers. Rudyhar, Morrison, Davison,
Michelsen, Tobey, and Bradley are at the top of my list as human beings
interested in communication foremost. They were reaching out through
lectures, articles and correspondence.
Question:
What ever happened to Michael Helius? Astrosonics seemed to be destined
to roll back then, although I worried that the intelligence community
would grab him, steal his machines and ideas and sentence him to an
underground cell in Marion, Illinois. Every time I plot another
earthquake in a region that is politically sensitive I stop to wonder if
it may have been induced by one of Michael's machines. With the advent of
HAARP research and the testing of it this weekend I am curious about what
appears to be an outgrowth of his research and the potential uses of this
technology.
With deepest regards,
Michael Jordan
siderealm.aol.com
Michael Erlewine
Siderealm <side...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970310185...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Thanks for your response. At least you met Jayne and quite a few others I
see, most of whom I too have had the pleasure to meet.
For years, my wife and I hosted many astrologers at the Heart Center in Ann
Abor, Michigan. We had an interesting method of raising money for these
visits. Since we did not always have the time, energy, and what-not for a
full-blown lecture (posters, newspaper ads, etc.), we found another way to
handle this. We got a group of dedicated astrologers who were willing to
pay a little more to spend an evening with one of these visiting
astrologers 'up close and personal'.
We would all chip in and some 10-12 of us spent some wonderful evenings
with people like Jayne, Noel Tyle, Rudhyar, Rober Elliot, Davison, and many
others. There is nothing like getting to know those who are expert in their
discipline, whatever it may be.