31
Hi Tom and All:
Tom wrote:One of my main gripes with modern astrology is with what moderns call ?signatures.? Signatures are supposed to indicate a common condition or circumstance. To make one up, having the ruler of the first in the 12th is a signature for imprisonment or institutionalization. It?s not, although it can pop up in charts of institutionalized people from time to time. When we are trying to come to grips with personal tragedy, like this one, it is only natural to want to find an answer somewhere to help ease the pain we experience watching innocent others suffer. Such signatures, in my mind don?t exist. This is why astrology ?fails? so many ?scientific? tests and statistical analysis.




I?m trying to work with signatures, and my goal is to find some aspects between planets, if they stay in specific houses, if they aspects or not it?s own sign or the ASC, if the Lots appear in some places more than in others, etc. This kind of analysis takes time and is an arduous job but sometimes give us an idea of what kind of configuration appears frequently in certain disease or behavior.
Signatures do exist but they demand a large study with hundreds of charts to construct an statistical frequency.
I?m studying for example charts of Down?s and I?m intrigued with the number of dignified planets in cadent houses. I?ll have to write it down, at least as a kind of qualitative study, since at this moment the number of persons studied are not enough to construct a large statistical database. But I can at least write what I observed.
Gauguelin for example studied a huge amount of cases, millions of them, and reach some few signatures, humble ones, but very powerful. Some of them: 1-people generally get married with person pertaining to signs that square their own signs,2- there are statistical correlations between planets position in family charts: parents and children, sister and brothers, etc.
For example, in my family we have a powerful Mars signature: My mother is Scorpio, with Sun and Moon in Scorpio and my father is Aries, I?m Aries with Moon in Scorpio, my daughter has Aries Ascending in the same degree I have the Sun, and my son has the MC in Aries.
So, sometimes signatures are nothing more than our astrological common sense, statically measured. But if you are lucky ( and patient and hard working!) you can discover a configuration that is unique in prodigy children, for example. I studied that matter and I got a very meaningful signature ?but I have to write it down, again! <G> I have no time to do all my projects!


My first suggestion is that we all go over and find Steven Birchfield?s posts, particularly on the mystery charts threads, to see how to really read a nativity and find answers. Until he pops over here, you?re stuck with me.


I agree: we need to read the chart in a classical way.
The present chart has not the obvious flags of mental disturb and is not claiming ?I?m a schizophrenic" . I have seen many persons having one or two debilitated planets, as are Jupiter and Mars in the present chart, with no mental problems, at all.
The important thing is to immerse in the chart analysis to find out what happens.
I?m seeing that the ruler and almuten of the ASC is Mercury and Mercury is the Almutem Figuris , as well, the ruler of all the chart.
The condition of Mercury is really peculiar.

Mercury is angular in the 4th...but it is out of sect ( masculine oriental planet, rising before the Sun and appearing under the earth), fall amiss to the ASC and does not look at its own sign. It has power to act, though, but it is not able to give any testimony of its behavior or" thoughts" to the ASC, the person. Being out of sect it plays against the native. Besides that, it?s in the same sign of Saturn, the 4th sign. In Hellenist astrology they would be considered in conjunction, in the 4th house, by whole signs.
In my point of view this is the biggest testimony in favor of a mental problem of the native, and it is configured to the kind of thing psychologist call unconscious behavior.
We don?t have any planet making aspect with Mercury, so it?s alone with its ideas, not related with any aspects of the chart. That is an important sign of mental splitting between the native thinking being divorced of all the mundane aspects of life.
About the MC, I liked your point: it?s in conjunction with Algol. And the MC has to do with " praxis", behavior.
It?s interesting also to note that the ruler of the 12th is in the 4th, meaning that the home the native lives is a prison. Psychotic institutionalized persons used to have a link between the 4th and the 12th.
I can?t talk about mental illnesses signatures, because I didn?t study them with a method yet, but I will.
Generally speaking I have seen schizophrenic or mental disturbed cases having the Moon in Mercury?s signs, angular in the 7th or in the 4th or cadent in the 12th. Saturn and Mars are also present in the configuration.
In the present case the Moon is angular and combust, but in the second sign of the 4th.

best regards

Clelia


http://www.astrologiahumana.com

32
Hi,

Just to clarify my point about chart signatures. I'm talking about things like, "Saturn retrograde means feelings of inferiority due to an absent, weak or emotionally distant father." No it doesn't. I'm sure that is true in some cases but it is also true that most people experience their fathers as emotionally distant because that's the way men are and all of us have feelings of inferiority. I don't think Jones' patterns are particularly accurate either. I also am suspicious of all these patterns like mystic rectangles, kites, etc.

Now Gauquelin did provide us with some insight and information, but even if we view the planets nears angles as chart signatures for profession we are going to be severely disappointed with the results. Gauquelin's studies beat chance. But in reality the percentage and/or military men in all the charts with Mars near an angle wasn't too high. It was about 30% if I recall. Yes that beats chance, but it is useless as a chart signature. First off it only applied to the top of the professions - not the rest of the group. So if you looked at 1000 mystery charts all of whom were top flight athletes, you'd find that about 300 of them had Mars near an angle. If you saw 10,000 charts taken at random, and 1% of them were top flight athletes, you'd see an awful lot of Mars rising and have no way to know, using this signature, which ones were top athletes. I've concluded that while interesting and worthwhile research, Gauquelin's work is of no practical value to the practicing astrologer precisely because chart signatures don't work all that well.

Your observation regarding Mercury and people with Downs syndrome is interesting, but if if the numbers don't beat chance, it is only a red flag. Red Flag's are fine, but they aren't what moderns call chart signatures. The same is true for Gauqelin's work. If I see Mars on a an angle I'd ask, are you competitive? Are you aggressive? Does a career in athletics or the military seem of interest or do you just like to go to bars, get drunk, and get into fights? Mars on the ASC can be brave, rash, competitive, or argumentative. It signifies nothing precisely the same in every chart.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Tom

33
Tom:

Thank you for the very interesting and detailed comment on the chart I posted for my relative with schizophrenia. I was especially caught with your observation that her midheaven conjuncts the malific star algol. I am not accustomed to paying attention to fixed stars, but I certainly will in the future.

I agree that Algol conjuncting her midheaven, and opposing natal mercury (ruler of the ascendant), which is found at the bottom of the chart, is significant. If one is inclined to look at the outer planets, Pluto in the 12th house squares both the MC and Mercury almost exactly.

In researching algol, I notice that Elsbeth Ebertin associates this star with bad teeth. When the native was a young woman, she had a severe problem with her teeth and many of them had to be pulled and replaced with false teeth. My recollection is that the root problem was caused by a lung infection and the medication she needed for that.

Robson associates the star, if culminating, with murder, prone to murder and causing mischief, as well as losing one's head. For a few years, the native was dangerous to herself and to others, and this is what resulted in the institutionalization.

Her physical body today is not good, as for years she has been on extreme drugs developed for extreme mental disorders. Recently, she developed diabetes.

Before the onset of the mental illness, the native was a beautiful, young woman who loved life and had a mischievous sense of humor. It is indeed a tragic story.

34
Hi Tom:
Tom wrote:Hi,

Just to clarify my point about chart signatures. I'm talking about things like, "Saturn retrograde means feelings of inferiority due to an absent, weak or emotionally distant father." No it doesn't. I'm sure that is true in some cases but it is also true that most people experience their fathers as emotionally distant because that's the way men are and all of us have feelings of inferiority. I don't think Jones' patterns are particularly accurate either. I also am suspicious of all these patterns like mystic rectangles, kites, etc.


I agree with you at the point we can?t generalize.
But, and it?s interesting, Ptolemy said a very intriguing thing which inclined me to cast a lot of charts of " monstrous" births.
In Tetrabiblos book 3, Chapter 9, he says:
"9.Concerning Monsters
The account of monsters is not foreign to the present examination; for, first, in such cases the lights are mostly found to be in decline or unconnected to the Horoskopos, while the pivots are grasped separately by the malefics"
Robert Schmidt, the translator, says in a footnote at this point:
"" dialanbano". We have not encountered this word in an astrological context. Of the fundamental meaning of this verb, there seem to three that could apply to this astrological context.1) "To take or receive as a separate portion", in which case there may be a reference to the malefics ruling the pivots; however, the planets ruling the lights and the Horoskopos are brought in later in a more specific condition, so I do not think they are intended here.2) " To seize upon separately" , as when one person grasps the hands and another the feet of someone, in which case themalefics may be understood to occupy the pivots. 3) " To separate", in which case the malefics may be thought to separe the pivots from each other( perhaps by both occupying a position between them), or separate them individually( by occupying them separatly)Hephaisto would seem to favor this possibility since he has the verb " diago" here instead , meaning " to force apart". This could make sense since the pivots might be likened to joints, and forcing the joint apart might result in a monstrous appearance"

That caught my eye and I cast and studied 50 charts of monstrous births to see if this kind of design appeared. And the answer was yes, it appeared: parts of the chart were joined together making an opposition to the others, sometime in the pivots, sometime not.
The appearance of the chart was of being grasped separately.
It was not a simple opposition aspect, but groups of planets opposing to other ones.

In a modern sense I don?t ?believe" in using rectangles, or crosses, or special figures, but the above case deserves more investigation.
Now Gauquelin did provide us with some insight and information, but even if we view the planets nears angles as chart signatures for profession we are going to be severely disappointed with the results. Gauquelin's studies beat chance. But in reality the percentage and/or military men in all the charts with Mars near an angle wasn't too high. It was about 30% if I recall. Yes that beats chance, but it is useless as a chart signature.


Remember that Guaguelin?s study on sports was the one which generates more debates. Anyway, his studies when replicated in several countries and by several authors gave the same results.
I admire the Guaguelins as extremely serious and respectable researchers.
The interesting thing is that Cartesian scholars can?t accept astrology as a science, so they tried to discredit Guaguelin?s study...and now the same occur with astrologers, I don?t know why! Doing researches in astrology is a tough activity, not lucrative and a solitary one. Universities will not pay for your job as well, a job that will take a life. May be that is the answer: nobody want to believe it would be useful to study during all life a subject which can bring poor results comparing to the effort. It?s like to catch fish with a fish-net and get only one. But doing statistical research in astrology is a valid target, in my point of view.


Your observation regarding Mercury and people with Downs syndrome is interesting, but if if the numbers don't beat chance, it is only a red flag. Red Flag's are fine, but they aren't what moderns call chart signatures.


As a matter of fact they are more than red flags, in that specific case, since I have not see in any chart a Mercury in Virgo or Gemini, neither an emphasis in the axis of the 3rd and the 9th. If you have 15 cases and all of them give the same answer, it?s is a valid statistical result. But I have to review the study, it is not fresh in my mind.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.


Thank you for the discussion!

Clelia
http://www.astrologiahumana.com