skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Minor Aspects - 15 & 165
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:19 am    Post subject: Minor Aspects - 15 & 165 Reply with quote

MINOR ASPECTS - 15° & 165°

From the thread, Link: Morrison on Planetary Rulership of Houses
TransmaniaconMC wrote:
Regardless of where this thread ultimately needs to be filed, I want to thank you for taking the time to post that idea. These are exactly the kinds of things that I enjoy finding on astrology forums. (ie. new ideas, old ideas with a twist, ideas that just might work even though they SEEM to come out of left-field, etc.)

I noticed in one of the links that you included that a quindecile (165°) aspect between Uranus and Chiron was a KEY ELEMENT. I find this quite interesting and personally amusing, as I use the quindecile aspect much in natal astrology. As you likely know more of the history than I, may I ask you what source the quindecile first comes to us from? (I do understand the 11/24ths harmonic implications, but I mean the actual isolation of the quindecile as an important aspect) Also, related, do we know where the idea that quindeciles relate to compulsion (in natal astrology) comes from? The "oldest" source that I have for this idea is Noel Tyl.

Now, please, before questions are raised as to where my questions need to be posted, understand that I ask this question HERE because this is the thread that SPAWNED my questions. Additionally, as I am asking for older sources for some ideas, I believe that it somehow is appropriate to ask on the Traditional Forum where people are more knowledgeable about original sources of ideas.


The reason for me starting this thread is because I want to hear more about what TransmaniaconMC, or anyone else, has to say on either their use or concept of the quindecile (165°) aspect. This is because I am looking for more information on classical issues:

The Via Combust
One of the definitions of the Via Combust, being the one of my personal preference, is that the Fiery Way (or the ‘Dirty Way’ - my def.) stretches from the degree of the Sun's fall at 19 Libra, and continues 15° onwards through to the degree of the Moon's fall at 4 Scorpio. This passage is opposite the exaltation degrees of the Sun at 19AR and the Moon at 4TA. The exaltation of the Sun is defined by the square root of 360 = 18AR56, and the Moon’s exaltation is defined by the measure of 15° waxing from the exaltation degree of Sun, at which point she is no longer under the Sun’s Beams and springs forth as visible and ‘new’. (Link: Exaltations)

In an article on my site at astronor.com (Link: Via Combust) I try to explain or rather explore the idea that the 15° ahead of the degree of the Sun’s fall, being the band from 4-19 Libra might be a ‘Path of Fatigue’. Going back to the exaltations of the luminaries, it seems strange that the point in which the Moon appears from under the Sun’s beams should be indicated with such celebration, if not the point where she entered the Sun’s beams at 4 Aries should be a point of great anguish and fear.

In reference to another tradition and division that is commonly accepted and used all over the World, is the length of a Day on Earth as we use it divided into 24 hours – and 24 planetary hours, according to astrological traditions. 15° is the distance that the Meridian will travel along the celestial during the interval of one hour.

This brings me to the question of the 15° and 165° aspects - what is going on in these points? Are they aspects of a fatal testimony and can something that appears to be anchored in both a division of the Earth’s diurnal rotation and expressed through an angular relationship between the Sun and the Moon, can this be translated to give meaning to other inter-planetary aspects and relationships?
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Minor Aspects - 15 & 165 Reply with quote

Andrew Bevan wrote:
MINOR ASPECTS - 15° & 165°
I'm not sure if this fits in the traditional section either but if you say 'minor aspects' I immediately think of Kepler. Although Kepler was a 17th century man, in this (aspects) sense he can't be considered a traditional astrologer.

On google books there is a translation of Kepler's 'Harmonice Mundi'
'The Harmony of the World' translated by E. J. Aiton, Alistair Matheson Duncan, Judith Veronica Field,
http://books.google.nl/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=harmony+of+the+world+kepler&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=falsewhere he discusses the rationale of aspects (major as well as minor). I think of buying this book.
The 15° and the 165° aspects belong to the group of the '24-gons' and are discussed on p.50/51, see index p.540 in the book for more '...-gons'.

I have a French book on Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum'. there it is shown that Johannes Kepler changed his ideas during his life. At one stage he even returned to only the usual classical aspects which he considered as the most 'knowable'. The following is a quote on his view on the difference betwee major and minor aspects. It's in French but I think that with an online translating website you will find the essence.

Le secret du monde, tr. Alain Philippe Segonds (Paris : les Belles Lettres, 1984). ISBN 2-251-34501-9. TEL n°228, 1993, ed. Gallimard.

p. 246 quotation of Kepler in footnote 55 : "<< L'octil ou sequadrat et le sequiquadrat, une fois réservé leur droit en Musique, parce qu'ils ont des sous-tendantes ignobles, appartiennent au peuple, dont la puissance [politique] est nulle, sinon en lábsence des magistrats, parce que le peuple plie sous la masse des occupations. C'est-à-dire : si pendant un certain temps les aspects primaires n'existaient pas, ces aspects aussi auraient peut-être quelque efficace, tout particulièrement si la terre se trouvait alors pleine d'humeur, auquel cas elle se décharge elle-même quelquefois sans le stimulus des aspects. Mais puisque le plus souvent les aspect primaires sont là, la Nature sublunaire, fatiguée par ces aspects ne sent pas ces stimuli moins puissants. >> Les <<magistrats>> sont donc les aspects primaires (quadrat, etc.), tandis que le <<peuple>> est les aspects mineurs, qui ne trouveraient à exercer leur efficace que si les aspects primaires n'existaient pas."

The essence in short is: major aspects are the 'magistrats' minor are the 'people'. When the magistrats aren't there the people may have some power. However since the magistrats are often there, the power of the people may be too small to be noticed.

Kepler realised the danger of using too many aspects he therefore stopped at a certain point,
Kepler wrote:
In order to prevent the number of aspects from becoming too great, thus creating confusion in practical application, one must stop with the square, the quintile and the biquintile, and not proceed to derived aspects to an extreme; such aspects are extremely weak.
Source: Kenneth G. Negus: Kepler's Astrology
http://cura.free.fr/docum/15kep-en.html

I usually tend (or try) to ignore the minor aspects, indeed there is a risk of 'finding' too much in the horoscope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy, thank you for the Kepler quote. Thumbs up
Eddy wrote:
I usually tend (or try) to ignore the minor aspects, indeed there is a risk of 'finding' too much in the horoscope.

Also very wise. In natal astrology, I agree. But the mechanics of mundane astrology could be different and horary astrology involves a limited range of significators so the map does not get quite so chaotic.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Bevan wrote:

Eddy wrote:
I usually tend (or try) to ignore the minor aspects, indeed there is a risk of 'finding' too much in the horoscope.

Also very wise.
In transits however I have the quite convincing feeling that the 45° and 135° aspects have an effect. I have much more doubts about the transits by aspect of the quintile (and decile) series. The transits by 30° and 150° seem to work but in that case I find them very weak.

Strange enough Kepler lists the 30° along the trine and sextile in his order of 'decreasing degree of effectiveness' and the 45°/135° aspects lowest in rank (p. xxxii of the Introduction in the mentioned google book). I remember that in the before mentioned French book Kepler is said to have regretted the introduction of the 45°/135° and even considered them weaker as the 36°, 108° aspects Confused .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I remember that in the before mentioned French book Kepler is said to have regretted the introduction of the 45°/135° and even considered them weaker as the 36°, 108° aspects.

That's crazy. Confused The division of the zodiac circle into 8 to include the 45°/135° is so significant. Concerning the 30° aspect, Lilly also has an example where is interprets a semi-sextile 30° through signs of long ascension as a sextile and a confirmation of the chart. But that I think is a matter of art. The 36° and 108° I have spent little time on, but the 15° and 165° do at least seem worthy of some thought and explaination due to the reasons mentioned in the introductory post.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Bevan wrote:
Quote:
I remember that in the before mentioned French book Kepler is said to have regretted the introduction of the 45°/135° and even considered them weaker as the 36°, 108° aspects.

That's crazy. Confused The division of the zodiac circle into 8 to include the 45°/135° is so significant. Concerning the 30° aspect, Lilly also has an example where is interprets a semi-sextile 30° through signs of long ascension as a sextile and a confirmation of the chart. But that I think is a matter of art. The 36° and 108° I have spent little time on, but the 15° and 165° do at least seem worthy of some thought and explaination due to the reasons mentioned in the introductory post.

To the best of my recollection this was in Book II of CA (Horary).

In Book III, Nativities, he recommends to frame a Speculum and to insert "the new and old aspects" 8p. 511) which he presents as "these of late one KEPLER, a learned man" (p.32) "with their usuall characters" (pp. 511 and 512). These are degrees 30, 36, 45, 72, 108, 135, 144.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the issue remains that 15° is significant both from the perspective of it representing 1 hour of motion along the MC, and 15° is the distance at which planets either are caught under or depart from under the Sun's Beams. This fraction is the basis of two fairly fundamental astrological structures, yet not sufficiently explained when it comes to aspects.

The 15° angle is obvioiusly a theshold that changes something? Whether it should be taken as a major consideration in all purposes is a different matter.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having doubts whether to post in this or in the 15°/165° thread, I follow the recent course of the Morrison thread but place it in this one which seems to be more appropriate. Perhaps Deb can place the threads in another section if deemed necessary. Respecting the traditional character of this forum section I limit myself to the historical issues of this aspect. After all I wouldn't have much to say about these aspects themselves.

Thanks for the links Tom, I think some parts of the puzzle come together by this info. Ring's book mentions several times the name of Kepler and the use of his minor aspects. Ring being a German just like Kepler it seems obvious to me that he got it from Kepler. Another illustration of how old informatioon 'oozes' through time into a modern jacket.

johannes susato wrote:
To my knowledge the 165°-Aspekt was 'found' by KEPLER and was called Tao, meaning crisis, ambuscade (without quote).

Johannes

PS: Ring, p. 283, not mentioning KEPLER
This is allmost surely from Karen Hamaker-Zondag's (a Dutch Jungian modern astrologer) book on aspects,
http://books.google.nl/books?id=MP6sTNGECwIC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=tao+165+aspect+kepler&source=bl&ots=ac02vrpO-g&sig=5NU28tO6bVfy_Ib4wleLvC8IXcg&hl=en&ei=GBLbSvX6J8rP-QabjbTBDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tao%20165%20aspect%20kepler&f=false
If I have time (in a couple of weeks) I will try to find the Dutch version in a library to find some references if there are some (pages left away in the google book)

Interesting that Johndro's name appears in that article. In Tom's thread on Right ascensions and fixed stars http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4783&start=15
it was mentioned that Johndro's Location charts were used for a certain technique. Johndro using the longitude of places on Earth for this may have been inspired by the fact that every 15° along the equator is one hour. Rather than seeing a significance of the number 24 I rather see the time division as being inspired by the twelvefold division of both the day and of the night, as is done with the planetary hours.

the article wrote:
Note that some people feel Quindecile is a misnomer, saying that should properly be used for another aspect, 24 degrees.
I find it really a misnomer, if the names quintile, sextile, septile, octile, decile, vigintile are based upon the number to divide by, the name quindecile is really odd one out and shoud be used for the 24° aspect group.

Tom wrote:
It probably isn't real important who worked with it first, but, it may interest some to see how the various authors handled the aspect, and if one is interested in such things, it might also be of interest to see how John Addey viewed this 24th harmonic aspect.

Addey was for a part inspired by the divisional charts vargas of Indian astrology. Two kinds may be worth looking at to find an explanation for these aspects. The hora (looking at the first and the last 15° degrees of a sign) and the chaturvimshamsa (at least the Indians use the names consistently) http://www.astrosagar.com/pages/article.asp?id=1

I read Addey's 'Harmonics in astrology' nine years ago, while some things are interesting I find that the extensive use of harmonics might lead too far. Moreover the technique of orb used by Addey based upon 12°(or 15°) for the conjunction 6°(7°30') for the opposition, 4°(5°) for the trine etc. leads firstly to the fact that beyond the 30th (or 24th) harmonic aspects will overlap. Secondly the aspects are ranked equally. Following this kind of reasoning an exact 3/11th aspect (98°10.1') will therefore be stronger than a 176° opposition. From a classical point of view this 3/11 aspect would rather be a wide orbe square.

Kepler didn't accept all divisions:
Kepler wrote:
As God the Creator played music, in like manner he taught Nature to play after his likeness -- that is to say, precisely that piece of music that he has played for her. Therefore it is the case that in music no natural soul of a human being wants to play with a septangle, nor will he enjoy such if this proportion is given to the voices, because God did not play with these figures.
source: Kenneth G. Negus: Kepler's Astrology
http://cura.free.fr/docum/15kep-en.html

Kepler didn't accept these for several reasons: no musical intervals of the 7th were considered to be pleasant to the ear. Further the heptagon, nonagon etc. can't be formed by ruler and compass, the only instuments accepted in classical times and assumed to be used by God in creation (on the other side I suddenly think of William Blake who strongly disliked the 'Newtonian' materialist and mechanic view of creation (with ruler and compass),
See his following paintings, 'Creation' and 'Newton',
http://spiritualcosmology.com/images/BlakeCreation.jpg
http://differnet.com/experience/atlarge/newton.jpg
(I saw them in Tate Gallery, London 9 years ago, when there was a William Blake exposition).
However later it was discovered that there were more figures that can be constructed with ruler and compass. Gauss showed that there are more numbers that can form the base of figures to be based with rulear and compass, the so called Fermat prime numbers (3,5,17,257,65537 etc.) http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/formulas/faq.regpoly.html
Kepler also mentioned (finally?) congruence as the base for the effect of aspects.

Perhaps a bit simplistic but couldn't these 15° and 165° aspects rather be very wide orbs of conjunction and opposition respectively.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
Perhaps a bit simplistic but couldn't these 15° and 165° aspects rather be very wide orbs of conjunction and opposition respectively.?

You might be onto something here. I checked up on traditional aspects and the moiety or orb of the Sun is considered to be 8° or equal with combustion. However, it is difficult to see how a planet could be 'Under the Sun's Beams' yet not conjunct the Sun.

I have to quote a few things from a personal message from TMC, I am sure he won't mind and I hoep he will add to the discussion, since he was the guy that got my mind ticking:

TransMC wrote:
REgarding the 165°: ...these particular expressions even FEEL FORCED as if, this would not be able to be my life, IF I DID NOT DO THESE THINGS.

At any rate... it does make me wonder about a tie-in in the sense that...if the ratio of 11/24 gives some particular COMPULSIVE element in natal astrology, what other ramifications are there to this aspect in terms of mundane, etc. Upon following your posted link and seeing the comment about the quindecile aspect, it made me more curious about other applications of this aspect.

I have my natal Sun at 13LE21 and Moon at 27AQ56. That is 165° apart. One thing is sure, I would not be myself if I did not follow my personal conviction, aim and purpose within astrology. I tend to be none-compromising on this point and would rather forsake a normal life instead of taking a normal job just to keep in line with everyone else.

In horary we use planetary hours, which is a system not considered to be relavant to mundane astrology - maybe dividing the ecliptic into portions of 15° is the same apporach but in a mundane fashion?
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Bevan,

Yes, it is okay that you quoted from a personal message. The part you quoted wasn't the personal part. Wink

At any rate, you mentioned not "taking a normal job" and that got me thinking as well about my circumstance.

As I mentioned, I have the Jupiter quindecile Uranus aspect (tightly). Along the compulsive line, I noticed that I gave up a well-paying government job that normally NO ONE would give up (in American culture anyways) in order to travel overseas (Jupiter) to do Astrology (Uranus). This is, of course, just one expression,...but again, it was something that wasn't debated, "should I do this?" or "shouldn't I?", it was merely, I *HAVE* to do this. (The money change and other ramifications didn't really enter into the equation. I just HAD to do it.)

Even though many of the psychological elements that are "tied to" astrology appear to be a bit "reaching", I have to say that, from my research and case studies, the planets in quindecile seem to have a compulsive expression element that thrusts those planetary themes to the front (in terms of importance and undeniability) and center of people's lives.

Ricki Reeves (one of Tyl's graduates) has written a book about the Quindecile aspect. Though the book wasn't so interesting, there is a good presentation on the aspect and some interesting delineations/examples of the aspect with various planets, cookbook style.

Currently, I would like to know where this aspect "came from" and if any of the older sources had found a "compulsive or obsessive" element to its expression...

Thanks, Bevan, for anything you turn up.

I am totally against the "it's just a wide opposition" idea, since the tighter opposition itself does NOT seem to exhibit this compulsive element...which it should with tighter oppositions, if it were related. I think this is a whole "new" aspect and somehow perhaps mathematically hinging on properties of the 11/24th ratio.

OD'd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andrew,

my followig posting is not any more in the forum or better: It is only to be seen in Eddy quoting it. Can you help, please? Thank you in advance!

Quote:
johannes susato wrote:
To my knowledge the 165°-Aspekt was 'found' by KEPLER and was called Tao, meaning "crisis, ambuscade" (without quote).
Johannes

PS: Ring, p. 283, not mentioning KEPLER


Hi Eddy,

this is a quote of the Swiss astrologer Gertrud Hürlimann. In her "Astrologie" she refers to W. Koch (the same who lays claim to the finding of the Koch-Houses). I have read meanwhile in W. Koch's "Aspektlehre nach Johannes Kepler", S. 89, where he writes that the name Tao for the 165°-aspect was a proposition of K.W. v. Elmensberg in her "Astrognostica Rediviva. Alte Tempelweisheit in neuer Fassung", published 1930.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My following posting is not any more in the forum or better: It is only to be seen in Eddy quoting it. Can you help, please? Thank you in advance!

I think moderators are trying to cope with the situation as best as they can at the moment. With me introducing an discussion well into the boundaries of the forum's intent, I will eventually be confronted with the responsibility if things really do go bad. I assume your post may have been removed to try and keep things with a traditional context. Don't think to hard about it, if this was what happened. I am due to slip up on occasions. It was with good intent. Cheers! Smile
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Bevan wrote:
I think moderators are trying to cope with the situation as best as they can at the moment.

Why not simply continue this discussion in the 'Nativities&General Astrology' section? Just like stepping out of a train when one notices that one should have taken an other train. I feel a bit guilty for keeping this thread 'alive' over here. The 15°/165° finally turn out to be an inspiration for early 20th century astrologers.

johannes susato wrote:
this is a quote of the Swiss astrologer Gertrud Hürlimann. In her "Astrologie" she refers to W. Koch (the same who lays claim to the finding of the Koch-Houses). I have read meanwhile in W. Koch's "Aspektlehre nach Johannes Kepler", S. 89, where he writes that the name Tao for the 165°-aspect was a proposition of K.W. v. Elmensberg in her "Astrognostica Rediviva. Alte Tempelweisheit in neuer Fassung", published 1930.
It seems to be a 'Kepler revival' however I doubt whether Kepler himself would agree with everything.

TransmaniaconMC wrote:
I am totally against the "it's just a wide opposition" idea, since the tighter opposition itself does NOT seem to exhibit this compulsive element...which it should with tighter oppositions, if it were related.
I don't understand why the opposition could not be related with complusiveness.

In short here's an explanation why Kepler (sometimes) felt for only the traditional aspects. It all lies in 'congruence' (and I got it from the French book):
When you take an aspect there is always another aspect taken along the opposition line/diameter of the circle. To clarify, a 60° aspect eads also to a (180°-60°)= 120°. Same with 45°/135° and 15°/165° and so on.

What is so unique with the classical aspects 0°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 180° and their counterparts? If you multiply these numbers then you always will fill a circle. 6*60°, 4*90°, 3*120°, 2*180° all result in 360°, a full circle.
the aspects 36° and 72° fill a circle when multiplied by 10 and 5 respectively. Yet their counterparts (measured along the diameter of the circle) 144° and 108° respectively cannot be filled by multiplication with a whole number, they will either be too small or too large. 2 Biquintiles is too small 3 too large, 3 tridecile and 4 same. This is the case with any aspect except the classical ones.

This makes the 'new' aspects somewhat 'unclean' or 'unwissbar' (unknowable), ineffabilis' in Kepler's eyes. The mistake (some) modernists make in my eyes is that they found their inspiration in number symbolism rather than (Kepler's) geometry, also allowing for 7,9 and 13 based aspects.

In my eyes this also makes Kepler, although 'modern', more traditional than many modern astrologers, who embrace him as a bringer of new aspects, realize. Or to place it in a more historical context:
Jim Tester wrote:
'Kepler and Jean-Baptiste Morin are almost complementary to one and another as thinkers. Kepler in a sense wants to look back to a Neo-Platonist, or rather a Neo-Pythagorean world of number-forms and solid mathematical figures, all fitting into a harmony that made sense of the whole: a view of the world as has been said that Ficino and Pico would have wholly sympathised with. Morin wants to look forward - in very much his own way - into the next age, to produce a logical, coherent whole into which astrology fits with (corrected) modernscientific ideasand practice as a part ofthe whole pattern, which includes a proper form of divination. But Kepler belongs to the future, and his training and experience and even ways of lookingat problems are modern. Whereas Morin's whole background - his geocentrism, his anti-Cartesian, anti-Gassendi 'science', his alchemy and astrology - keeps him firmly facing backwards. He could not avoid belonging to the past any more than Kepler could avoid, even had he tried, belonging to the future.'
Jim Tester 'A History of Modern Astrology' p. 234/235 http://books.google.nl/books?id=L0HSvH96alIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+western+astrology+tester&hl=en#v=onepage&q=kepler%20morin&f=false

Although I believe that it seems that at least the 45°/135° aspects work, I try to stick to the classical aspects because of this philosophy. Why not use these while they appear to work? That's something I'm trying to reconcile with since some years. Like the 'magistrats' vs. 'people' comparison mentioned earlier one perhaps could see them as 'working' but unable to bring any change. Following my transits I believe most changes in life come with the classical aspects with the conjunction as the strongest one, then opposition, square and trine/sextile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Bevan



Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 4676
Location: Oslo, Norway

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread is being moved to the 'Natives and General Astrology' thread. I am locking the thread in the 'Traditional Techniques'. A shaddow will remain here for a short time.
_________________
http://www.astronor.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the explanation and your kind words, Andrew! My text is back again.

But I wonder why the research whether or not one of the small aspects was introduced by a classical astrologer should not be part of the Classical Astrology. Or has Kepler mutated into a party of the Psychological Astrology now?

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated