Which 'sidereal' zodiacs?

37
Good morning,

Ms Papretis, which 'sidereal' (presumably equal sign) zodiacs did you test and which criteria did you apply to select them, please?

Best regards,

lihin

PS One might recall that fixed stars analyses and interpretations were an integral, indispensable part of the practice of nearly all astrologers using the tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere until about the latter 19th century CE.
Non esse nihil non est.

38
Good morning, lihin,
I used Lahiri. I tested several ayanamsas and Lahiri (not Fagan as I had anticipated!) gave in most cases the biggest effect. The test will be included in the upcoming article.

39
Papretis wrote:
I used Lahiri. I tested several ayanamsas and Lahiri (not Fagan as I had anticipated!) gave in most cases the biggest effect. The test will be included in the upcoming article.
I noted you mentioned earlier in the thread you were testing this out with ASC rulers. Since we are discuusing occupation/profession wouldn't the MC (or nonagesimil) ruler be more logical in this instance?

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

40
Mark wrote:Papretis wrote:
I used Lahiri. I tested several ayanamsas and Lahiri (not Fagan as I had anticipated!) gave in most cases the biggest effect. The test will be included in the upcoming article.
I noted you mentioned earlier in the thread you were testing this out with ASC rulers. Since we are discuusing occupation/profession wouldn't the MC (or nonagesimil) ruler be more logical in this instance?

Mark
I remember being told by my teacher (Indian-based sidereal) that in matters of career/vocation, the ascendant is more likely to show the "what", the MC (or 10th) the "how".
Graham

41
Mark wrote:Papretis wrote:
I used Lahiri. I tested several ayanamsas and Lahiri (not Fagan as I had anticipated!) gave in most cases the biggest effect. The test will be included in the upcoming article.
I noted you mentioned earlier in the thread you were testing this out with ASC rulers. Since we are discuusing occupation/profession wouldn't the MC (or nonagesimil) ruler be more logical in this instance?

Mark
I am just now (very late) looking in on this topic which has many interesting posts and referenced articles. Thanks to everyone! I believe that Papretis has been totaling ascendant signs in her research rather than the position of ascendant rulers. Papretis, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

42
I've been "away" while recovering from shoulder surgery but I'm baaaack.
Papretis wrote:Hi all and thanks again for an enjoyable discussion.

Dale, I read your article ?After Symbolism?. Of course you had excellent points there. You also had some really good observations about the transits of Mars and Saturn. I especially liked the way you wrote about how Saturn loosened Freud?s existing conceptual commitments ? loosened, not tightened, as a thoroughly modern astrologer might think; Saturn as the traditional significator of decay and disintegration. I also liked how you criticized our certainty about the interpretation of the outer planets. As you probably know, Sue Ward has written a good paper on this subject http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/p ... urnepl.htm .
Glad you enjoyed it. Just to clarify, in studying Freud and others I didn't come to associate Saturn by itself with a loosening of existing conceptual commitments, just the combination of transiting Saturn and natal Mercury. I wouldn't necessarily expect the same effect with Saturn transiting other planets. Nor do I associate Saturn with disintegration and decay, in and of itself or in combination with other factors. In general I try, to the extent that I can, to forget what the received tradition says things mean, and what things have meaning, and instead endeavor to search without preconceptions for "astrological" order in nature via the means outlined in "After Symbolism". Often the biggest block to progress, the thing that has to be broken through for a breakthrough to occur, is what we already "know". That was the specific point I was making in describing my study of the Uranus/Neptune cycle, albeit it's not just the handed down meanings of outer planet transit cycles we should question but all things astrology. At present I associate Saturn per se with that level of the psyche that Freud called the ego, Jung the persona, and Maslow esteem needs. (Just as different wavelengths of light are perceived by us as different colors, so too do different temporal wavelengths, in this instance 7? years, correspond to different levels of the psyche.) Hence during what cognitive developmental psychologist L.S. Vygotsky called "the crisis at age 7", which astrologically coincides with transiting Saturn squaring its natal place, the child's self-directed speech, via which she organizes her activities, goes underground and becomes Silent Speech, or thinking, which is no longer out loud as it has been since the turn to age 3 but in our heads in service to a conscious self-image which we try to live up to. The child at age 7 is for the first time able to do "work", a fact which is reflected in past and present cultural practices around the world.

I'd like to read Sue Ward's article, even though I find the title, "Uranus, Neptune and Pluto: the sources of their symbolism", somewhat off putting. It's not the source of their symbolism we should be looking for, but the source of their effects, although even that is a misnomer. I prefer to say that life over evolutionary time has used the planets as temporal templates around which to organize its constituent processes, with those processes (in humans, anyway) being motivational rhythms. I'd still like to read the article but I'm not working (or drawing paychecks) while my shoulder is healing, so at the moment I'm pinching pennies and can't purchase it.
Article: After Symbolism

43
Therese Hamilton wrote:I believe that Papretis has been totaling ascendant signs in her research rather than the position of ascendant rulers. Papretis, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Therese
Hi Therese,

No, in the article I'm not counting ascending signs as such, but the planetary rulers. The basic result of the study is that the ruler of the Ascendant would seem to make a better sense sidereally than tropically.

We have for example a bunch of murderers, assaulters, etc., and sidereally their most frequent ascendant ruler is Mars. That of course by definition means that their most frequent ascending signs are Aries and Scorpio, because those are the signs ruled by Mars. And that in turn means that because the tropical signs are about 24 degrees ahead of the sidereal ones, the most frequent tropical rising signs of that same group must be the next ones from Aries and Scorpio, ie. Taurus and Sagittarius. Which in turn does not make a lot of sense regarding to the planetary rulers.

So, though I'm talking about the signs in the article, the center point are the traditional rulers of the signs and their coherency.
graham wrote:I remember being told by my teacher (Indian-based sidereal) that in matters of career/vocation, the ascendant is more likely to show the "what", the MC (or 10th) the "how".
That?s interesting. While the study at hand deals also with personality traits, life events, etc. along with the professions, the Ascendant and the 1st house would seem to have something to do with profession too. It might tell about the role the person plays in a society. There are modern astrologers using Meridian houses who say that the MC is actually a more personal point than the Ascendant, telling about one?s most personal and highest aspirations.

This summer I?ve studied the houses a lot and I still have not given up the Octoscope option. In any case the area surrounding the MC or Nonagesimil (relevant especially if we use a house system where the cusp is not the beginning of the house, but inside it, that is Whole Signs, Sripati, Vehlow, or Octoscope) would seem to have to do with nourishment, nurturing and private space. This results shows up no matter which house system is under scrutiny.

People who have a lot of emphasis in the house surrounding the MC include restaurateurs, farmers & ranchers and people with unusual diets (food and nutrition); or then you feed people with harmful or immoral things as do drug dealers and sex workers (in this case the most frequent planets being Mars and Mercury); nurses, physicians and the sex workers often have Venus here (nurturing and care); trade union and social activists have the fiery Sun in this area (fighting for the well-being of the people); and Mercury here indicates concrete and physical activity in providing for others (social workers, Gauquelin?s politicians, social activists, producers, sport coaches & managers, drug dealers, sex business, farmers & ranchers, restaurateurs). The slow planets, Jupiter or Saturn, on this area indicate stability: a happy marriage and spending the whole life in the same location. And surprisingly the Sun or Mercury near the MC would seem to indicate a private personality.

One thing seems to be clear: emphasis on the area surrounding the MC does not in general indicate a publicity-oriented person seeking personal visibility or fame.

What does all this mean? If we use a twelve-fold house system, does this mean that we should count the houses clock-wise and the MC would actually be the cusp of the 4th house, not of the 10th? Does this mean that the MC really indicates one?s most personal aspirationsas? Or if we consider the Octoscope, does it mean that we should count the houses anti-clockwise, and the MC would be the cusp of the 7th house of marriage?

Or maybe the MC might indicate an area where what you do is far more important than what you are - therefore the protection of your personal space. The last option is actually not so impossible at all.

44
Papretis wrote:
No, in the article I'm not counting ascending signs as such, but the planetary rulers....So, though I'm talking about the signs in the article, the center point are the traditional rulers of the signs and their coherency.
Papretis, so as I understand it, you are counting ascendant signs, but relating them to their rulers? So if an ascendant is in Scorpio, that's a point (score) for Mars, the lord of Scorpio?

My question about rulers in response to Mark was rather off-topic here, so I'll copy your quote above and continue my response (later today or tomorrow) under your temperament topic that you created on the sidereal forum: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 3344#83344 ("The sidereal elements and the temperament")

I have indeed found some interesting ascendant results when comparing the charts of astronomers and race car drivers from the ADB files. This was an unexpected surprise!

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

46
dragonqueen wrote:http://www.nvwoa.nl/pdfart/ruis/ruisen.pdf

Interesting article on killers.I checked ADB,but couldnt find a clear link betwen Scorpio,Aries and murders,but I only had time to check a few
Papretis was using the sidereal zodiac, but the article in the link you posted is one fine research piece, which very few astrologers can even begin to emulate.

Persoanlly, I see little similarity between sidereal Aries and Scorpio. (Ecliptic area of tropical Taurus and Sagittarius)

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

47
Spock, Mark, and anyone else,

Schmidt has noted that in Valens, whole sign houses are used with two exceptions. One is the calculation of planetary strength, in which Valens describes an eightfold division, which he himself postulates could be twelvefold (Anthologies III, 2). I?ve often seen this referred to as a harbinger of the Porphyry house system. But it?s always nagged at me -- I?ve always wondered why we think of this as a house system as opposed to just calling it ?areas of strength? and leaving it at that.

Spock?s interesting point about the areas of Gauquelin not being indicative of a house system certainly brings this idea to my mind. Valens? description does meet Spock?s ?house criteria? in that there are literally 8 or 12 such sectors. But it doesn?t describe 12 different effects, just gradations of strength (either binary strong/weak or strong/middle/weak). This would go against it being considered a house system. You get the idea.

I?m very curious as to people?s thoughts here. It?s fascinating to me to hear my own poorly worked out thoughts articulated so well by Spock, in a totally different setting.

Thanks,

Phil

PS- Sorry if this question is either inane or shouldn?t be on this thread due to being off topic. I had to ask.

48
Phil wrote:Spock, Mark, and anyone else,

Schmidt has noted that in Valens, whole sign houses are used with two exceptions. One is the calculation of planetary strength, in which Valens describes an eightfold division, which he himself postulates could be twelvefold (Anthologies III, 2). I?ve often seen this referred to as a harbinger of the Porphyry house system. But it?s always nagged at me -- I?ve always wondered why we think of this as a house system as opposed to just calling it ?areas of strength? and leaving it at that.
I did some googling, found a link on Chris Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology Website to a pdf of Mark Riley's translation of Valens' Anthologies, and downloaded it. The twelve 'places' (sign-houses, evidently) he describes in Book ll are associated with twelve different sets of effects. In each 'place' he refers to the specific effects of benefics and malefics, of particular planets in that 'place' or ruling it, and other not always clear (from my brief reading) combinations. For instance, for Vl: " If Jupiter [in this place?] rules the Lot or the Ascendant, the native will lose his property in civil suits." Clearly he's speaking of twelve interpretive boxes. In Book lll, section 2, the part you referred to, he first states that, measuring from angle to angle, the first third of each quadrant is 'operative', and 'stars' in this area, whether benefics or malefics, are powerful, with the remaining two-thirds 'inoperative' and impropitious. He then states, "Now to me the following method seems more scientific," and divides each quadrant into thirds, with the first third being 'operative and powerful', the second 'average', and the third 'crisis-producing and bad'. Interestingly, in Book l, in the section on calculating "the houseruler of the year', he similarly gives a standard or accepted method, then follows with "To me it seems more scientific", and describes a different one. Valens was evidently a 'modern' astrologer willing to supersede handed-down methods with what he felt were better ones. He contrasts his 'more scientific' way with the practices of 'the old astrologers'.
Spock?s interesting point about the areas of Gauquelin not being indicative of a house system certainly brings this idea to my mind. Valens? description does meet Spock?s ?house criteria? in that there are literally 8 or 12 such sectors. But it doesn?t describe 12 different effects, just gradations of strength (either binary strong/weak or strong/middle/weak). This would go against it being considered a house system.
The 'gradations of strength' described in the 'more scientific' version in Anthologies lll, 2 aren't consistently that. In his tripartite division from the Asc to the IC (and its opposite) the first is operative and powerful, the second average, 'neither completely good or bad', and the third 'crisis-producing and bad'. But with reference to the other two opposed quadrants the third section is 'afflictiing and inoperative'. This resolves the apparent inconsistency. Valens apparently conflates strength and activity, on one hand, and lack of strength and activity on the other with, respectively, goodness and badness.

It is not, however, an aspect system, but an overlay over the house system, much as we see angular, succedent and cadent houses as a continuum from strong to weak. An added complication, and in this Valens really is inconsistent, is that the twelve different interpretive boxes known as places, now known as houses, are assuming Schmidt is correct a reordering of signs starting with the one containing the Asc, that is, sign-houses, whereas his tripartite strength/goodness overlay is a quadrant division. Perhaps what we're seeing here is a snapshot of an historical transition, the merging of two distinct but related systems into the modern quadrant systems which are both twelve different effects and, within each quadrant, angular/succedent/cadent or strong/average/weak.

That's history, of course, interesting as, as close as we can ascertain it, 'the truth' about what our predecessors believed but not necessarily 'the truth' per se about reality. The Gauquelin study, which does represent in my opinion an advance in our understanding of astrological effects, being a test of some of Leon Lasson's house interpretations divided the diurnal circle into discrete sections that made the results superficially look like houses, but actually shows aspect effects which, like Mars hard-angle Saturn for instance, describes a single effect or set of effects that's present when the two planets are within orb of aspect, and absent when they aren't.
Article: After Symbolism