Origin of the Void of Course
Moonpaw
As we know, the Void of Course (v/c) moon, occurs from a few minutes to a
few days when the moon is passing through the signs of the zodiac. When the
moon gets near the end of each sign it goes beyond its last major aspect,
or connection, with another planet. Until the moon moves into aspect with
another planet in the next sign, it is said to be "void of course." This
period of time is calculated by a computer.
Question: Who first calculated the Void of Course? When was it first
calculated?
Thanks and may everyone try to live in peace with each other.
LM
John A. Halloran
In article <19970918022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
moo...@aol.com (Moonpaw) wrote:
>
> As we know, the Void of Course (v/c) moon, occurs from a few minutes
to a
> few days when the moon is passing through the signs of the zodiac.
When the
> moon gets near the end of each sign it goes beyond its last major
aspect,
> or connection, with another planet. Until the moon moves into aspect
with
> another planet in the next sign, it is said to be "void of course."
This
> period of time is calculated by a computer.
>
> Question: Who first calculated the Void of Course? When was it
first
> calculated?
>
Robert Hand has written a good article about this in the new Oct./Nov
issue
of Mountain Astrologer (sold at the Barnes and Noble chain).
The Void of Course moon as an indicator in the natal chart dated back
at
least to the Roman writer Julius Firmicus Maternus.
Very interesting is Robert's recommendation that one look at the last
major
aspect that the moon made as well as the next major aspect that the
moon would
make in the natal chart, as a guide to what the native in this life is
leaving
behind and then embracing in this life.
Regards,
John Halloran
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tony Jebson
John A. Halloran wrote:
[snip]
> > Question: Who first calculated the Void of Course? When was
> > it first calculated?
> The Void of Course moon as an indicator in the natal chart dated
> back at least to the Roman writer Julius Firmicus Maternus.
I assume this would be in Book IV of his Mathesis (written around
337 AD) where he covers the Moon, the Lot of Fortune, "empty" and
"full" places and masculine and feminine degrees.
However, Firmicus is _extremely_ confused, preserving relics of the
'octatopos' and maintaining many other older confusions.
Interestingly, he wrote "On the Error of Profane Religion" sometime
after the Mathesis. This is an attack on mystery cults (like
Astrology) and denounces belief in such things.
The Greek and Roman authors describe so _many_ contradictory and
confused systems that I'd be surprised if you couldn't trace a
particular modern practise to at least one of them.
--- Tony Jebson
John A. Halloran
>John A. Halloran wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Question: Who first calculated the Void of Course? When was
>> > it first calculated?
>[snip]
>> The Void of Course moon as an indicator in the natal chart dated
>> back at least to the Roman writer Julius Firmicus Maternus.
>[snip]
>I assume this would be in Book IV of his Mathesis (written around
>337 AD) where he covers the Moon, the Lot of Fortune, "empty" and
>"full" places and masculine and feminine degrees.
Yes, in Liber Quartus, section VIII, If the Moon Is Moving Toward Nothing
(Void of Course), in my translation by Jean Rhys Bram, Ancient Astrology:
Theory and Practice, Noyes Classical Studies, 1975. Of course, Rob Hand
provides his own translation in the Oct/Nov issue of Mountain Astrologer
magazine.
The destiny of such an individual is rather bleak according to Firmicus
Maternus, but Rob Hand says that ancient astrology authors described the
extreme meanings of a placement, that would apply if there were no mitigating
factors. It does pay to read Rob Hand's article, as he makes these ancient
expressions clear to the modern astrologer. In some cases, the ancient
astrologers had rules that were later lost, such as looking at a benefic
planet on the angles as a modifier of a Void of Course Moon.
Regards,
-------------------------------------------
John Halloran, Halloran Software
P.O. Box 75713, Los Angeles, CA 90075 U.S.A.
http://www.halloran.com/
e-mail: sea...@primenet.com
Ann Shermann
On 22 Sep 1997 10:06:00 -0700, sea...@primenet.com (John A. Halloran)
wrote:
>In article <34231C...@texas.delete.net> Tony Jebson <je...@texas.delete.net> writes:
>
>>John A. Halloran wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> > Question: Who first calculated the Void of Course? When was
>>> > it first calculated?
>>[snip]
>>> The Void of Course moon as an indicator in the natal chart dated
>>> back at least to the Roman writer Julius Firmicus Maternus.
>>[snip]
>
>>I assume this would be in Book IV of his Mathesis (written around
>>337 AD) where he covers the Moon, the Lot of Fortune, "empty" and
>>"full" places and masculine and feminine degrees.
>
>Yes, in Liber Quartus, section VIII, If the Moon Is Moving Toward Nothing
>(Void of Course), in my translation by Jean Rhys Bram, Ancient Astrology:
>Theory and Practice, Noyes Classical Studies, 1975. Of course, Rob Hand
>provides his own translation in the Oct/Nov issue of Mountain Astrologer
>magazine.
>
>The destiny of such an individual is rather bleak according to Firmicus
>Maternus, but Rob Hand says that ancient astrology authors described the
>extreme meanings of a placement, that would apply if there were no mitigating
>factors. It does pay to read Rob Hand's article, as he makes these ancient
>expressions clear to the modern astrologer. In some cases, the ancient
>astrologers had rules that were later lost, such as looking at a benefic
>planet on the angles as a modifier of a Void of Course Moon.
>
John,
What about the symbolism of the 29th degree of any sign as a "piercing
of the veil," a knowing which is beyond the ordinary knowing, into
other realms of reality?
Ann
John A. Halloran
>What about the symbolism of the 29th degree of any sign as a "piercing
>of the veil," a knowing which is beyond the ordinary knowing, into
>other realms of reality?
The moon in the 29th degree is very probably not going to make any major
aspects before it leaves that sign. Where do you get that symbolism? Is that
also from ancient astrology?
Ann Shermann
On 23 Sep 1997 10:24:01 -0700, sea...@primenet.com (John A. Halloran)
wrote:
>In article <34273227...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> awal...@ix.netcom.com (Ann Shermann) writes:
>
>>What about the symbolism of the 29th degree of any sign as a "piercing
>>of the veil," a knowing which is beyond the ordinary knowing, into
>>other realms of reality?
>
>The moon in the 29th degree is very probably not going to make any major
>aspects before it leaves that sign. Where do you get that symbolism? Is that
>also from ancient astrology?
>
Wish you hadn't asked me that, John. That little pearl I cannot
narrow as to source. I learned it 20+ years ago and over the years it
has proven to be real, particularly with any of the prominent points,
i.e. Sun, Moon, Asc., ruling planet. I have had the good fortune to
watch several with the Moon in the 29th degree and these people are
uncanny with their ability to cut through the layers which most of us
labor to penetrate. These people just *know* the root of the
situation -- no strain, no reasoning, no "if-this-then-that," just
straight on *knowing.*
When I first read your post (I delayed my response trying to remember
the source) I first thought _Isis Unveiled_ but the more I think about
it, I am simply not sure of the source. Sorry. But, whatever the
source, and I am one who thinks that not only does creation continue
but revelation, it is quite real.
My best,
Ann
Robert Roosen
According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter 13
which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
"The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
Robert
On
Edmond Wollmann
Robert Roosen wrote:
> According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
> the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter 13
> which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
> "The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
> established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
> thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
> Robert
The last 3 degrees of a sign are critical and reflect an urgent need for
resolution-the issue (or person) is preoccupied with this idea and needs
to "get off it" to move on with the next sign.
In horary, the last three degree reflects that the issue queried is "too
late" and other things will unfold to demonstrate that truth.
The first 3 degrees of any sign is alos urgent-but urgent in the sense
that things need to be resolved because of lackadaisical attitudes-not
because of preoccupation as with the last 3.
ALL astrological indicies are reflective of the momentum of the idea
that we are, and these critical degrees reflect the momentum (karma)
behind ANY idea.
Void of course is simply the recognition of the waning of momentum
within the idea or ideas that were intiated during the major aspects
period-it does not mean NOTHING will happen, it means that the
"happenings" will wane. Since the moon is the feminine function and the
reaffirmation of life-as the moon sheds it shadow, so the serpent sheds
its skin.
This was known by all ancients.
--
"Free will, will simply be the exercising of the chosen purpose, whether
from the higher consciousness level or the physiological level."
Bashar-"The New Metaphysics" 1987, page 18.
"Karma is simply an expression of momentum in a particular direction
with regard to what the higher self wishes to experience of itself. All
karma is self imposed. It is not a judgment. It is the recognition of
balance. It is the recognition of an idea that is being lived out, that
is being experienced, and the chosing of situations that will allow for
that experience to occur in physical reality." Bashar
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. add an n to wollman to e-mail me
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
John A. Halloran
> According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
>the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter 13
>which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
> "The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
>established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
>thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
>Robert
>On
>Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Ann Shermann wrote:
>> On 23 Sep 1997 10:24:01 -0700, sea...@primenet.com (John A. Halloran)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <34273227...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> awal...@ix.netcom.com (Ann Shermann) writes:
>> >
>> >>What about the symbolism of the 29th degree of any sign as a "piercing
>> >>of the veil," a knowing which is beyond the ordinary knowing, into
>> >>other realms of reality?
>> >
>> >The moon in the 29th degree is very probably not going to make any major
>> >aspects before it leaves that sign. Where do you get that symbolism? Is that
>> >also from ancient astrology?
>> >
>>
>> Wish you hadn't asked me that, John. That little pearl I cannot
>> narrow as to source. I learned it 20+ years ago and over the years it
>> has proven to be real, particularly with any of the prominent points,
>> i.e. Sun, Moon, Asc., ruling planet. I have had the good fortune to
>> watch several with the Moon in the 29th degree and these people are
>> uncanny with their ability to cut through the layers which most of us
>> labor to penetrate. These people just *know* the root of the
>> situation -- no strain, no reasoning, no "if-this-then-that," just
>> straight on *knowing.*
Ann and Robert,
Applying the AstrolDeluxe for Windows search function to the Famous Charts
collection looking for the moon between 29 and 30 degrees of a sign yielded
many interesting names. I performed this search only on known birth time
charts. For comparison purposes, the same search was performed to find charts
with the moon between 10 and 11 degrees of a sign, just to throw results of
the first search into perspective.
Extracting out some of the most well known, people with the moon in the last
degree of a sign included:
Sir Francis Bacon
Malcolm X
Pope John Paul II
River Phoenix
Pierce Brosnan
Shirley Temple-Black
Sir Winston Churchill
Morgan Fairchild
Engelbert Humperdinck
Jack Nicholson
John Madden
Neil Diamond
Judy Garland
Donna Summer
Michael Crawford
Billy Ray Cyrus
Jayne Mansfield
Simone de Beauvoir
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Personally, I find the degree of the moon sign to be less revealing than
placement in the sign as a whole. There are clear differences between the
types of individuals who have different moon sign placements.
Individuals with the moon so clearly on the cusp between signs could
also help to define separate interpretations for placement on the
cusps between cominations of signs. Another factor that deserves more
attention is the next planet to which the moon would form a major aspect.
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Aries
------------------------------------------------
Sir Francis Bacon
Stefano Casiraghi
John William Coltrane
Henry Ford II
Malcolm X
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Aries
------------------------------------------------
Franz Cumont
Alain Deleon
Anatole France
King Henry VIII
Zakir Hussain
Jeffrey MacDonald
Yitzhak Rabin
Alan Wilder
Jane Wyman
Total celebrities with Moon in Aries: 159
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Taurus
-------------------------------------------------
Isak Dinesen
Michael Dukakis
Frida Kahlo
Pope John Paul II
River Phoenix
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Taurus
-------------------------------------------------
Frank Gifford
Germaine Greer
Total celebrities with Moon in Taurus: 185
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Gemini
-------------------------------------------------
Robin Smith Astaire
Pierce Brosnan
Calvin Coolidge
Abbie Hoffman
Wendy Makkena
Shirley Temple-Black
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Gemini
-------------------------------------------------
Tony Dorsett
Larry Kert
Omar Sharif
Total celebrities with Moon in Gemini: 174
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Cancer
-------------------------------------------------
Alannah Currie
James Barrett Reston
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Cancer
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hardy
Henry Cabot Lodge
Sydney Omarr
Henri Rousseau
Total celebrities with Moon in Cancer: 208
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Leo
----------------------------------------------
Terry Bradshaw
Sir Winston Churchill
Robert K. Dornan
Morgan Fairchild
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Leo
----------------------------------------------
Lizzie Borden
Andre Courreges
John Foster Dulles
Geraldine Ferraro
Martha Graham
Dalai Lama
Jawaharlal Nehru
Ezra Pound
Barbara Streisand
Total celebrities with Moon in Leo: 181
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Virgo
------------------------------------------------
Eva Braun
Ruth Brown
Eugene Fodor
Engelbert Humperdinck
Rose Marie
Jack Nicholson
Vanessa Redgrave
Barbara Stanwyck
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Virgo
------------------------------------------------
Melissa Sue Anderson
Mary Astor
Kenneth Branagh
Rajiv Gandhi
Total celebrities with Moon in Virgo: 187
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Libra
------------------------------------------------
None
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Libra
------------------------------------------------
Sir Richard Burton
Orville Wright
Total celebrities with Moon in Libra: 176
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Scorpio
--------------------------------------------------
John Madden
Dan White
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Scorpio
--------------------------------------------------
Bernardo Bertolucci
Phil Donahue
Wayne Newton
Donald O'Connor
Willie Shoemaker
Total celebrities with Moon in Scorpio: 165
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Sagittarius
------------------------------------------------------
Milton Berle
Neil Diamond
Dame Margot Fonteyn
Judy Garland
Mitch Gaylord
Peter Green
Sterling Hayden
Ethel Kennedy
Rod Serling
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Sagittarius
------------------------------------------------------
Anne Archer
Marge Champion
Hal Holbrook
Thomas Jefferson
Carl Wilson
Total celebrities with Moon in Sagittarius: 181
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Capricorn
----------------------------------------------------
Joyce Carol Oates
Brent Scowcroft
Donna Summer
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Capricorn
----------------------------------------------------
Elijah Blue Allman
King George III
Annie Lennox
Elizabeth Montgomergy
Stavros Niarchos
Dorothy Parker
Sarah Vaughan
Loretta Young
Total celebrities with Moon in Capricorn: 181
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Aquarius
---------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Buckingham
David Cassidy
Michael Crawford
Billy Ray Cyrus
Amy Grant
R.D. Laing
Jayne Mansfield
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Aquarius
---------------------------------------------------
Keith Carradine
Marc Chagall
Roberta Flack
Melina Mercouri
Jacqueline Susann
Total celebrities with Moon in Aquarius: 205
Moon between 29 and 30 degrees of Tropical Pisces
-------------------------------------------------
Simone de Beauvoir
Lloyd Bentsen
Shaun Cassidy
Hillary Rodham Clinton
John Wayne Gacy
Richard Ramirez
Ivan Turgenev
Moon between 10 and 11 degrees of Tropical Pisces
-------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Ashley
Allen Ginsberg
Mata Hari
Don Jacobs
Pauline Kael
Neil Michelsen
Phyllis Schlafly
Sissy Spacek
Total celebrities with Moon in Pisces: 185
Kevin Burk
John A. Halloran wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97092...@odin.ax.com> Robert Roosen <roo...@odin.ax.com> writes:
>
> > According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
> >the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter 13
> >which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
> > "The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
> >established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
> >thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
> >Robert
>
Although it may be a case of the chicken and the egg, classical
astrology seems to have taken issue with the last degrees of any sign by
essential dignity: the ruler of these degrees by Terms is always either
Mars or Saturn - the two "malefic" planets. Since the origin of Terms
as an essential dignity is rather obscure, it would be difficult to say
if the "malefic" influence associated with the last degrees of any sign
was observed prior to the development of "Terms", or if this conceit
came about as a result of the Mars/Saturn rulership of the late degrees
of a sign.
As to the Moon being Void of Course - William Lilly seemed to think that
the Moon could never be considered Void of Course in certain signs
because she "functions somewhat..." - I read that recently in one of Lee
Lehman's books, but I can't find the reference just now, so I don't
remember the signs...I'm pretty sure that Cancer was one of them
(because the Moon is ALWAYS dignified in Cancer)...but strangely enough
I seem to recall that Sagittarius was another one, and I'm damned if I
know how that could be the case because except for 10-20 degrees of
Sagittarius, the Moon is peregrine in Sagittarius (and even then it only
has dignity by Face).
Peace,
Kevin
--
******REMOVE "X" FROM E-MAIL ADDRESS WHEN REPLYING*****
*****************************************************************
mailto:kb...@astro-horoscopes.com
http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/~kburk
Astrological Horoscopes & Forecasts
P. O. Box 16098 San Diego, CA 92176 (619) 221-5534
*****************************************************************
http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/
Pete Stapleton comments: One of the studies conducted by
Garth Allen (Donald Bradley) is to be found within a book
entitled "Professions and Birthdates." Here Allen proves
the existence of the Sidreal Zodiac, and the none existence
of the Tropical Zodiac of Signs. I do believe the book is
still available from Lewllyn (sp).
If you take away the non existent in the sky tropical
zodiac of signs, then any reference to a void of course
moon or planet is in fact a refernce to a planet moving
into the sixth degree of the actual astrological influences
found in the sky. Hence, there can be no Void of course
effect. It just cannot exist. So, will anyone show how
non effect has been proven to exist. I know it is
difficult to have to do charts to find out if something actually
works or not - but this is alt.astrology, and it would be
nice is someone would give some concrete examples.
I will say it again. According to proof, the last degree of
a tropical sign is actually the 5th to 6th degree of the
astrological influences found in the sky.
Kevin Burk <Xkb...@astro-horoscopes.com> wrote:
>John A. Halloran wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97092...@odin.ax.com> Robert Roosen <roo...@odin.ax.com> writes:
>>
>> > According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
>> >the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter 13
>> >which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
>> > "The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
>> >established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
>> >thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
>> >Robert
>>
>
Bob Davison
Which interestingly corresponds to the lots of Manilius.
--
Bob
www.intermediatn.net/business/astrology
www.freeyellow.com/member/gustibus/index.html
de gustibus non est disputandum
"http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/" <peteja...@c-zone.net> wrote in
article <34361a7c...@news.c-zone.net>...
> Pete Stapleton comments: One of the studies conducted by
> Garth Allen (Donald Bradley) is to be found within a book
> entitled "Professions and Birthdates." Here Allen proves
> the existence of the Sidreal Zodiac, and the none existence
> of the Tropical Zodiac of Signs. I do believe the book is
> still available from Lewllyn (sp).
>
> If you take away the non existent in the sky tropical
> zodiac of signs, then any reference to a void of course
> moon or planet is in fact a refernce to a planet moving
> into the sixth degree of the actual astrological influences
> found in the sky. Hence, there can be no Void of course
> effect. It just cannot exist. So, will anyone show how
> non effect has been proven to exist. I know it is
> difficult to have to do charts to find out if something actually
> works or not - but this is alt.astrology, and it would be
> nice is someone would give some concrete examples.
>
> I will say it again. According to proof, the last degree of
> a tropical sign is actually the 5th to 6th degree of the
> astrological influences found in the sky.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Burk <Xkb...@astro-horoscopes.com> wrote:
>
> >John A. Halloran wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97092...@odin.ax.com>
Robert Roosen <roo...@odin.ax.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
> >> >the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter
13
> >> >which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
> >> > "The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
> >> >established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
> >> >thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
> >> >Robert
> >>
> >
Nefilim
Bob Davison wrote:
> > I will say it again. According to proof, the last degree of
> > a tropical sign is actually the 5th to 6th degree of the
> > astrological influences found in the sky.
And I will say this again. the moon would still be at the 29th degree in
whatever sign it may be in at the time for Tropical astrologers BUT it
would be in a different zodiac. The Tropical Zodiac is based on the
division of the sky into 12 parts..regardless of whatever zodiacal
cosntellations may be 'inhabiting' each division. The Sidereal Zodiac is
based on where the signs are. Therefore it must be constantly
recalculate due to precession. So, therefore it is actually in the sky
at the 29th degree. It is not 'imagined'. It just depends on how you
want to calculate. By signs are previous divisions. The Tropical Zodiac
is still in the sky.
Nefilim
'I can resist anything except temptation'
--Oscar Wilde
http://www.c-zone.net/sidereal/)
Nefilim <ega...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Bob Davison wrote:
>
>> > I will say it again. According to proof, the last degree of
>> > a tropical sign is actually the 5th to 6th degree of the
>> > astrological influences found in the sky.
>
>And I will say this again. the moon would still be at the 29th degree in
>whatever sign it may be in at the time for Tropical astrologers BUT it
>would be in a different zodiac.
Pete comments: I will say this again, there isn't any 29th degree of
a Tropical zodiac" found in the sky. Hence, there cannot be any
astrological result of our Moon passing through nothing. What do
measurements of the Earth's Equator projected into space have to
do with anything found in the sky? Better still, how can there
be "different" zodiacs in one sky?
Note the accepted definition
of the term zodiac is that it describes the Great Circle of the
Ecliptic, which is the circle that describes our Earth's orbit
around our Sun. Extending the Earth's Equator into space,
and then dividing it into 12 thirty degree segments doesn't make
it a zodiac, nor does any "earth" bound measurement affect
or describe anything astrological up in the sky. So the idea
of two differnt zodiacs being co- existent within one sky only
describes ignorance of the reality of the celestial sphere.
Nefilim posts:
The Tropical Zodiac is based on the
>division of the sky into 12 parts..regardless of whatever zodiacal
>cosntellations may be 'inhabiting' each division.
Pete comments: again, it is impossible for anything found in the
sky to be "inhabiting" something that has no other function than
to describe "seasons" on earth. The first day of spring within
the northern hemisphere is the fiduciary for this so called
tropical (seasonal) zodiac. And here we have someone who is
certain the first day of spring in the Northern hemisphere
projected into space controls the boundaries of the 12 astrological
influences alive and well and up in the sky. I'm certain our
Sun, and it's star spankled companions don't have even a clue
as to the existence of a "first day of spring in the Northern
hemisphere's existence.
Nefilim posts:
The Sidereal Zodiac is
>based on where the signs are. Therefore it must be constantly
>recalculate due to precession. So, therefore it is actually in the sky
>at the 29th degree. It is not 'imagined'. It just depends on how you
>want to calculate. By signs are previous divisions. The Tropical Zodiac
>is still in the sky. >Nefilim
>
>
Pete comments: no, the sidereal zodiac is not based upon the "where the
signs are." The sidereal zodiac is only called sidereal in order to
separate the reality of the astrology found in the sky, from the earth
based mathmatical fiction of "tropical" housology. The "sidereal"
zodiac is based totally upon the boundaries of the astrological influences
found in the sky. They were there first. Then, to for convenience in
locating them in the evening sky, the ancients use "marking stars" as
a easy reference to their boundaries. The astronomical constellations have
nothing to do with these boundaries, and certainly they do not change
every year according to some earth based equatorial seasonal fiction.
The best we can expect is that the marking stars will move maybe one
degree every 100,000 years in relation to our Sun. Not one degree
every 72 years which would be necessary if the tropical zodiac actually
eisted up in the sky.
So, the tropical zodiac has never existed in the sky, not now, and
not at any time in the past. Of course, Nefilm does fail to mention
beliefs that walk in lock-step with a belief called a "tropical
zodiac."
Where is the part which explains the existence of a tropical
zodiac requires our Sun to be orbiting around our Earth?
Where is the part which tells how the existence of a tropical
zodiac also requires our Earth be the center of our celestial
Universe?
Where is the part which shows the existence of the tropical
zodiac up in the sky proves our Earth is flat and standing
still.
And of course there isn't any proof of these necessary
attributes to the existence of the tropical zodiac. For
as even school children know, Corperincus exploded these
"tropical zodiac" myths in the 15th century. Which is how
we became plagued with what is today known as "modern
astronomy."
There is no tropical zodiac up in the sky. The only place it exists
is within the mathmatical fiction the astronomers use as a fiducairy
to project the earth's equator in to space. It has nothing to
do with the twelve astrological influences that actually exist up in
the sky. Hence, a Moon moving through the 29th degree of a mathmatical
fiction based upon a seasonal event on Earth cannot have any
astrological significance. None. Not any.
Regards, Pete
NOMORESPAM Meta Bright Star
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:38:07 +0000, Kevin Burk
<Xkb...@astro-horoscopes.com> wrote:
I would like to add this to the discussion.
First of all, if something has been learned by way of a book, I don't
think that means we humans can never repeat it. SO many of you
refer to a book for the rest of the information. Whatever happened to
the free exchange of ideas between human beings. Are we to be chained
by the law in order to respect copyrights. Poooleeeease. I beg you.
open up to each other, so we all can learn. I cannot possibly go out
and buy and read all the referenced materials.l State the idea, give
credit where due, and get on with the free exchange of information.
Now, the 29th degree is like the place where we leave one room and go
into another. There is change, instability. In chemicals, this can
be dangerous, In Lake Michigan, which is in my backyard, this
instability appears quite beautiful and colorful oftentimes. The 29th
degree is an ending that must be, therefore some say the place of
urgency. Whatever needs culminating will culminate here.
I urge anyone with other ideas to continue this thread. Thanks, in
love,
Meta Bright Star
>John A. Halloran wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97092...@odin.ax.com> Robert Roosen <roo...@odin.ax.com> writes:
>>
>> > According to Sakoian and Acker (Predictive Astrology),
>> >the last degree of a sign is called an "anaretic degree" See Chapter 13
>> >which discusses the effects of planetary placements in such degrees.
>> > "The Moon posited in an Anaretic Degree indicates that the
>> >established emotional habit patterns and automatic responses require
>> >thorough revision and are periodically brought up for review...."
>> >Robert
>>
>
KittyTauru
As i just mentioned in a thread about the ascendant, my ascendant is at 29
Gemini (and conjuncts Mars/Saturn @ 0 Cancer). I strongly agree that the last
degree of a sign creates a kind of anxiety and urgency about that sign (and
house, in the case of the ascendant.) I have a friend with 29 Aries on the AS,
and we have both been in a total funk throughout the months that Neptune has
been hovering at 29 Capricorn. Neptune is inconjuncting my AS from the 8th and
I've been vaguely obsessed with/ anxious about death. I'm also experiencing a
total lack of clarity about my sexuality. I'm very interested to hear from
other people with planets or cusps at 29 of any sign and to hear how they're
experiencing this Neptune transit.
I guess I missed the first post on this topic but I'm assuming it had to do
with the fact that the moon is almost never v/c now that Neptune's hanging out
at 29. This is something I had noticed as well and am curious to hear people's
thoughts on what this means. (Other than the fact that I almost never get to
use the excuse that the moon is v/c and there would be no point in trying to
start any new projects at work -- heh.)