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

How do you regard Stars?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  

In your actual practice of astrological delineation, how important are the stars?
I considers stars a major (primary) element in chart delineation..
40%
 40% 
I consider stars a minor (secondary) element in chart delineation.
20%
 20% 
I rarely (or never) consider stars in chart delineation.
40%
 40% 

Author Message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:06 am    Post subject: How do you regard Stars? Reply with quote

Are stars major, minor or rare/null considerations in your practical astrological work?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5011
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Are stars major, minor or rare/null considerations in your practical astrological work?


Hello Dr farr,

As far as I am concerned fixed stars are a primary consideration in any astrological judgement. They are the part of the core of how I assess a chart following the initial issues such as planets, signs, houses, aspects and dignities/reception.

I dont agree with the teachings of some traditional teachers such as Olivia Barclay that fixed stars are not relevant to issues such as horary or even natal delineation. The idea being that they only have significance for mundane affairs. This view doesn't match my experience at all. I find fixed stars useful for any kind of chart. A friend of mine learned horary with John Frawley and she was taught fixed stars are simply 'the salt and pepper' or inessential condiments of chart delineation. I dont share that perspective myself. That being said I wouldn't interpret a chart on just fixed stars alone anymore than I would assess it all on just aspects, houses or dignities. However, fixed stars frequently provide crucial support to other indicators in a chart.

The traditional astrologer has numerous other delineation tools available such as sect, antiscia, parts/lots, synodic cycle , planetary speed etc. However, If I am honest I would probably put fixed stars before all these. The only additional technique I might put beside fixed stars is synodic cycle as this is an area I find increasingly attractive.

I think a large part of the appeal of fixed stars is their natural quality. Quite simply look at the real sky! What do you see? If for some reason our entire culture was wiped out any future astrology would be hard to contemplate without incorporating the basics of planets and stars at its core. Could one really say the same of symbolic techniques such as sect, antiscia, lots etc? I concede all astrology works on symbolic principles. However, the fact fixed stars are a part of our physical universe gives them more importance in my understanding of astrological symbolism.
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark, do you apply ecliptical longitude or paranatellonta as to fixed stars?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5011
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mark, do you apply ecliptical longitude or paranatellonta as to fixed stars?


Both. I especially like paranatellonta with stars co-arising with the horizon/culminating etc or a planet. However, I am a lot less impressed by Brady's idea of using any paran line up within a day of birth. Of course she can find charts to fit this. However, the technique is so generalised that is not very difficult. The cynic in me thinks she leads with this approach because it gives everyone meaningful parans to delineate. I think stars exactly co-arising with an angle or planet in a natal, electional or mundane chart etc are much more astrologically powerful.

I went through a phase when I completely rejected ecliptical projection for stars well outside the ecliptic. Quite a few astrologers recommend this. Brady dismisses all zodiacal projection. In his preface to the Project Hindsight translation of Anonymous of 379 Robert Hand recommends only working with stars close to the ecliptic in this way. The band used could be the orbit of the traditional planets or out as far as Pluto if you use it. The logic being that we already project planets position on to the ecliptic. Similarly, in his book The Hellenistic Legacy Joseph Crane follows this recommendation too. Its a position I do respect but I confess I have had a few charts where stars well outside the ecliptic do seem very revealing using ecliptical projection. Whether this was random luck or a 'meaningfiul coincidence' I have yet to reach a definitive conclusion on. Brady's view is that stars should not be treated like planets. She argues planets are the natural attendants of the Sun along the ecliptic while stars are not part of this astronomical framework.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that ecliptical projection seems to be suggested for stars well outside the ecliptic from the earliest texts. Brady suggests this is due to Ptolemy. However, the method almost certainly preceded him. Even Anonymous of 379, whom Brady uses as her template text for her paran method, discusses ecliptical projection for stars well outside the ecliptic.

Still , one does need to exercise caution with stars at the ascendant using zodiacal projection as this will be vastly different for the in mundo position of star if it is well outside the ecliptic. There are also issues about whether circumpolar stars or stars that never appear in a particular latitude should be used at all? Another delineation issue is that projection on to the zodiac can result in more than one star very close to each other in zodiacal degree. This can occur even though the individual stars are vastly apart in declination and latitude. For example Spica and Arcturus, Betelgeuse and Polaris or Sirius and Canopus. In recognition of such potential problems lots of traditional sources emphasize that a star is more powerful closer to the ecliptic (ie close in longitude and latitude) to a planet or zodiacal angle.

Joseph Crane suggests a third method involving fixed stars is to look at stars on the same declination as a zodiacal degree as an angle or planet. This allows a wider band of stars to be included (such as the star Sirius) which are well outside the band of the ecliptic considered by Crane for zodiacal projection. He attributes this method to Hephaistio of Thebes.
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC's outlook regarding the stars is very similar to my own.

I have never used parans myself, primarily because the results I have obtained with longitude and parallel/contra-parallel of (ecliptic) declination, have been completely satisfactory (for me) In my analysis of star influences, I only consider conjunction or parallel (very rarely, contra-parallel) I have not personally seen (what I would consider) substantial evidence of stellar operation via the hermetic aspects (with some qualifying of this statement in respect to longitudinal opposition) I do consider star "conjunctions" and parallels with "points of meaningful space", that is, spatial points coincident with the various Lots, sensitive degrees ("cusps"), the pivots (especially asc and mc), also antiscia and Pauline dodekatemorion points.

Regarding stars projected upon the ecliptic, though far distant from it, this reminds me of the system of meridians used in Oriental (and also Ayurvedic) therapeutics: for example, points ("accupoints", "marma points") found say upon the lower leg, are nonetheless part of the "heart meridian", although in fact there are virtually no apparent (physiological) connections between that point and the heart (no nerve connections, blood vessel connections, etc) The connection is via a completely subtle-energy field meridian. I conceptualize a similar "meridian like" subtle connection existing between the actual spatial position of a star, and a point on the ecliptic. I do not claim that this is in fact the reality of the situation, only that this concept satisfies me (so far, at least) regarding this question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello MarkC and dr.farr,

Do you mind if I epxress my opinion over this?
No? No objection. OK here goes!

Fixed stars: Primary, Secondary or none at all?
Primary if configured with the natal planets, secondary if not.

Application: Event, Electional, Horary, Natal, Mundane?
All of them! Having said this, I find that the same fixed star could give very different meanings in different charts.

Methodology:
I am still not comfortable using projection to the ecliptic conjunctional for stars outside the band of the ecliptic. I use the conjunction of fixed stars to the planets for stars that are within the band of the ecliptic. I do not use any other aspect for the fixed stars (conjunction is the only aspect I look into for stars within the band of the ecliptic).

I also use the parallel aspects of stars to planets. I do not use contra-parallel aspects (as I don't think they mean the opposite of parallel aspects just as I don't think that the meaning of contra-antiscion or contrascion is simply the opposite of antiscion).
Parallel by declination or ecliptic latitude?
At the moment I have not decided but I am more inclined towards parallel by declination. Reason? Because many people said so (not a very good reason! – that is why I’ve not decided).

I do use the paran configuration that planets (including the four angles) make to stars. If they are exact (e.g. Moon was exactly on ASC/MC/IC/DSC) when another star was exactly on ASC/MC/IC/DSC) i.e. they happen within 4 minutes of birth - then it's really important!. For this case, I use all the planets (even up to Pluto).

If it only happens during the day you were born (Brady's type of paran method), then both the planet and the star involved must be conspicuous enough for them to have observable effects (i.e. the star must be visible during the night in question and the planet should be located in the powerful houses e.g. angular houses). If the star is in its invisible phase and/or the planet tucked away in some cadent houses - then forget it. By the way, I only use the personal planets for this method (Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury and sometimes Mars - haven't decided on Mars). I definitely skip Jupiter onwards for this method.

If the star is the heliacal rising star during the day that you were born (the first day that the star appears in the morning sky after a period of invisibility), that star gets a special looking. Anybody born on the same day would also have the same "ruling star" but the effects will be more conspicuous if the star is configured in some other way stated above.

Although Brady's mundane paran stars configuration (planets making paran relationship to star during the day you were born rather than exact) is not appealing to some astrologers, I believe that it still has merit if the star is visible (during the night) and the planet is powerful (e.g. angular) in a natal chart.

For mundane astrology, the star should still be visible (in the night sky in the location of interest) but no conditions are attached to the planets. Brady's configuration is interesting because it differentiates the effects of the stars at different location (i.e. geographical latitude). This is because the ecliptic degree that rises with the star is different for different geographical latitude of place for stars that lie outside the ecliptic band. The further the star is from the ecliptic band, the more different the eclitic degree that rises with the star would be for different geographical latitude.

Example: Regulus lies almost on the ecliptic itself,
Celestial latitude: 0deg 28min (currently).
It rises approximately with ecliptic degree of 0 Virgo at my place (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Lat 03N), Washington and London.

Another example: Algol lies quite far from the ecliptic.
Celestial latitude: 22deg 26 min (currently).
It rises approximately with ecliptic degree of 18 Taurus at my place (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Lat 03N), 4 Aries in Washington and does not rise in London (it has a permanent curtailed passage).

The rising is important to localize the effects of transiting aspects in mundane astrology. For example, you might have a transiting T-square of difficult planets occurring. If you wish to know whether the difficult aspect/configuration has any great impact on the country you could do one of two things:

1. Check whether the ecliptic degree of one of the planets involved in the difficult aspect/configuration is the same as the ecliptic rising degree of any difficult fixed star in the specified location.

2. Check whether the longitude of one of the planets involved in the difficult aspect/configuration is the same as any natal planet in the country’s natal chart (provided you have a “natal” chart of the country).

Let’s discuss number one (I think everybody would know about number 2). Let’s say that you have Saturn oppose Pluto where Saturn happens to be near 18 Taurus. So, Saturn would rise with the star Algol in my place but not in Washington. We would expect that the opposition has more effect in my county than US.
Saturn was also in Aries you would say (before it comes to 18 Taurus it must have passed 4 Aries where Saturn would then rise with Algol in Washington but not in my place). However, when Saturn passes through 4 Aries, it might not be making that opposition aspect with Pluto!
See the difference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Astrojin:
Very interesting and informative post..thank you! We need a lot more of this kind of in depth thinking regarding the stars, about "how and where they influence" (to quote Johndro's old book) Thanks again for this post!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5011
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Astrojin,

As usual a very thoughtful and insightful post. Your in a very select group of Skyscript members whose posts I frequently save for further study!

Quote:

Fixed stars: Primary, Secondary or none at all?
Primary if configured with the natal planets, secondary if not.

Application: Event, Electional, Horary, Natal, Mundane?
All of them! Having said this, I find that the same fixed star could give very different meanings in different charts.


Could you elaborate what you mean by fixed stars in a natal chart. Are you stating you consider them primary in a natal chart only if aligned with a planet? What about an angle? Or are you suggesting you consider fixed stars of primary importance for natal but less so in other types of astrology? I am a bit confused where are are coming from on this point.

I fully understand your concern about using stars outside the ecliptic for zodiacal projection. How far out do you go either side of the ecliptic before you reject a star?

Regards,

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


Last edited by Mark on Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello dr. farr, Mark and astrojin,

you are waving a very informative and illustrating thread here in this thread, really. It's a pleasure to follow your thoughts! Thumbs up Very Happy

Thank you very much for your reply in detail, Mark!

Regards,
Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello MarkC and everybody,
Thank you for the compliments!
Sorry for the late reply…

Quote:
Could you elaborate what you mean by fixed stars in a natal chart. Are you stating you consider them primary in a natal chart only if aligned with a planet? What about an angle? Or are you suggesting you consider fixed stars of primary importance for natal but less so in other types of astrology?

As mentioned before, I simply do not use the ecliptic projection degree for any fixed stars that lie outside the ecliptic band).

I would consider the fixed stars that rise/culminate/set/anti-culminate with the angles for both fixed stars that lie in and out of the ecliptic band (Primary Consideration).

I would consider the longitudinal conjunctions of fixed stars with angles (and even some Lots) for fixed stars that lie within the ecliptic band (also Primary Consideration).

I would consider the longitudinal conjunctions of planets with the fixed stars that lie within the ecliptic band. For natal astrology, I would want to see that the planets involved are in powerful houses and the stars in their visible phase (primary consideration). Usually I limit to the personal planets (may be up to Mars). If Saturn and Jupiter are important (conjunct a cusp of an angle and/or ruling an angle), I might still include them in natal astrology. For mundane astrology, I would include all of the planets.

I would also consider the fixed stars that rise/culminate/set/anti-culminate with the planets for both fixed stars that lie in and out of the ecliptic band. I take this as Primary Consideration if the planets are powerful e.g. posited in the angular houses and the fixed stars are visible during the night of birth (i.e. the fixed stars are in their visible phases). I take them as secondary if the planets are weak. As I said before, I would only consider the planets from Mercury up to Mars in this method for natal astrology. I would still include Jupiter and Saturn if they happen to be on an angle and/or ruling an angle in natal astrology. I would definitely use them in mundane astrology (which I would also include the three trans-Saturnian planets).

Quote:
I fully understand your concern about using stars outside the ecliptic for zodiacal projection. How far out do you go either side of the ecliptic before you reject a star?

About 9 degrees above and below the ecliptic. I take this band because Venus can travel with slightly more than 8 and a half degrees above and below the ecliptic. The other planets (I am considering only up to Saturn), do not seem to travel further than Venus (in terms of ecliptic degree). The other reason is because that’s the rule of thumb many astrologers/astronomers seem to use for the ecliptic band.
Maximum celestial latitude for Venus
20 Feb 1902 8d36m and 15 Sep 1911 -8d43m.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

astrojin wrote:

I would consider the longitudinal conjunctions of planets with the fixed stars that lie within the ecliptic band.


I don't take stars in longitude too, but it is obvious that traditional authors mention stars which don't lie on the ecliptic, like the Head of Medusa, Algol, for example.

In directions it's obvious that we can project their zodiacal degrees as we do with the rest of planets, but in natal I use Cieloterra method, ie I use their position in mundo and then I compare with the the same position for planets.

About star at the angles I follow Astrojin method, this is very easy because every astronomical software gives rising, culminating and setting time for stars.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5011
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't take stars in longitude too, but it is obvious that traditional authors mention stars which don't lie on the ecliptic, like the Head of Medusa, Algol, for example.


It has to be said though that the traditional ecliptical projection method seems to work very well at times with stars outside the normal band of the ecliptic. For example Algol on Princess Diana's Venus or malefic Algorab on the ASC and martial Betelgeuse on the Moon of the first of the 9/11 attacks on New York.

Quote:
About star at the angles I follow Astrojin method, this is very easy because every astronomical software gives rising, culminating and setting time for stars.


Maybe you can just help clear up something that I find a bit confusing. Using strictly astrological software such as Brady's software Starlight I can see how we can trace the stars co-arising with the four angles in local space. However, I believe you use an astronomical software package called Starry Night. How can you trace stars co-arising with the Midheaven using such software? Doesn't the culminating position of stars listed in this way reflect the local horizon Zenith rather than the Midheaven aligned to the ecliptic? Or does the astronomical definition of the term 'culminating' equate to the same thing?
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 469

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

A number of definitions in astronomy (for the benefit of all newbies):

Celestial sphere: an imaginary sphere of the heavens on the surface of which all celestial bodies appear to be located; once thought by the ancients to be an actual, crystalline physical sphere. The daily rising and setting of the stars and planets (diurnal motion) was thought to be the result of the diurnal motion of the celestial sphere.

Zenith: the point on the celestial sphere that is directly overhead (not the same as Midheaven).

Nadir: the point on the celestial sphere that is directly below - directly opposite Zenith (not the same as IC).

Local Meridian: the great vertical circle perpendicular to the horizon that also passes through the North and South points on the horizon as well as Zenith and Nadir.

Ecliptic: The apparent annual path of the Sun around the Earth (actually the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun).

Midheaven, Medium Coeli (MC): the intersection of the local meridian with the ecliptic above the horizon at a particular location. When sun is located on the MC, it is exactly apparent noon (Local apparent time is exactly 12 noon). MC is also the greatest altitude a sun can reach during the day. MC is not the same as Zenith.

Immum Coeli (IC): the intersection of the local meridian with the ecliptic below the horizon at a particular location. When sun is located on the IC, it is exactly apparent midnight (Local apparent time is exactly 12 midnight). IC is also the lowest altitude a sun can reach during the night. IC is not the same as Nadir (though some astrologers seem to think so due to the translation of the words IC which is latin for “lowest of the sky” and Nadir which the Arabic for similar term).

Culminating: when a body (planet or fixed star) intersects the Local Meridian above the horizon during its diurnal/daily motion. When the sun does this, it is noon - technically this is Local Apparent Noon. Culminating needs not be at the Zenith. When a body culminates, it has the greatest altitude of the day (not necessarily 90 degrees because culminating needs not be at the Zenith!).

Anti-Culminating: when a body (planet or fixed star) intersects the Local Meridian below the horizon during its diurnal/daily motion. When the sun does this, it is midnight - technically this is Local Apparent midnight. Anti-Culminating needs not be at the Nadir. When a body culminates, it has the lowest altitude of the day (not necessarily -90 degrees because anti-culminating needs not be at the Nadir!).

All stars and planets culminate and anti-culminate at some point during the day/night but they do not culminate at the zenith (or anti-culminate at the Nadir). Only stars (or planets) that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place would culminate exactly on the zenith and anti-culminate exactly on the Nadir.

As Sun has the maximum declination of 23d 26m, places with geographical latitudes greater than 23d 26m (North and South) will never see the sun culminates at the zenith (or anti-culminates at the Nadir). Places with geographical latitudes between 23d 26m North and 23d 26m South can see the sun culminates at the Zenith twice a year.

The stars have declinations that do not change much (at least not in a lifetime!). They actually do change at the rate similar to the rate of the precession. So, stars that do not have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will never culminate at the zenith. So, stars that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will always culminate at the zenith and these stars are called “stars of the place”. For example, the latitude of London is approximately 51N30. The star Etamin (gamma-Draco) has the declination of about +51d29m. So, Etamin is the star of London (and places that have the same geographical latitude as London). Etamin would culminate at the Zenith in London sometime during the day or night. BTW there is another star that can be considered as the star of the place. It is the star that touches the horizon but does not cross it. This happens for stars whose declinations are the same as (90 – geographical latitude of the place). For example, the latitude of London is approximately 51N30. 90 – 51N30 = 48d30m. The star Talitha (iota-Ursa Major) has the declination of approximately 48d. Hence, Talitha can also be the star of London (and other places whose geographical latitudes are the same to London). These stars remain as the stars of the place until about 100 years or so (when the declinations of the stars change due to the precession of the equinox). Then, we will have new stars as stars of the place.

Now back to MarkC question.
Quote:
How can you trace stars co-arising with the Midheaven using such software? Doesn't the culminating position of stars listed in this way reflect the local horizon Zenith rather than the Midheaven aligned to the ecliptic?

Solar Fire also gives the times of the rising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating of the stars and planets. As long as you are born when a star is culminating (at a certain place), then it culminates with whatever is the MC. Mathematically, this is when the Right Ascension of the star is the same as the Right Ascension of degree of ecliptic culminating (aka RAMC – Right Ascension of MC).
Similarly, as long as you are born when a star is rising (at a certain place), then it rises with whatever degree of the ecliptic rising. Mathematically, this is when the Oblique Ascension of the star is the same as the Oblique Ascension of degree of the ecliptic rising.

As an example the time that Spica rises in London according to Solar Fire is 9:14 pm on March 9 2010. So, anybody born at 9:14pm, March 9 2010 in London would have Spica rising. The time, date and place are already fixed, hence, the ASC and MC are also fixed for this person (Asc = 25d10m Libra and MC = 3d28m Leo). You cannot have a different Asc and MC. We would say that when a person is born at 9:14pm, March 9 2010 in London, Spica rises with 25d10m Libra and Spica rises with 3d28m Leo culminating. In fact, Spica would always rise with 25d10m Libra in London (at least for one generation) – only that it occurs at different times of the day throughout the year (due to its phase with the sun).


Last edited by astrojin on Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Mark

Quote:
How can you trace stars co-arising with the Midheaven using such software?he same thing?


True? I always make a mess with astronomy Sad Why earth is not flat?

Anyway visually I take stars where the ecliptic crosses the local meridian (I hope I'm right here).
And in every case I generally - when I'm not lazy- check with calculation. This is CieloeTerra method (I say because unfortunately I already saw works from Cieloeterra copied under other names and I expect to see astrological tools of this kind without proper credit ); they measure stars far from the ecliptic according their hourly distance from the axes MC-IC so a star with a distance 0 is at MC, one with 6 is at ASC (or DESC). In the same way we can calculate if stars are really in conjunction with planets, if they have the same hourly distance and are in the same quadrant they are together.
This is an obvious way to measure them because we take into consideration their actual position in the sky.

Quite easy method, if one is familiar with semiarc method of directing it takes a couple of days to make a small spreadsheet.

In every case I'm not a lover of exactitude, I don't use a fixed orb so Starry Nights times for me are ok- even if not astronomically exact. I don't care anything about 5 minutes more or less.

About Brady I don't understand where she took this thing of considering daily paran- I would be curious to see which texts she quotes.

and Astrojin

Quote:
The stars have declinations that do not change much (at least not in a lifetime!). They actually do change at the rate similar to the rate of the precession. So, stars that do not have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will never culminate at the zenith. So, stars that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will always culminate at the zenith and these stars are called “stars of the place”.


Jean Stade

Vertical stars should be judged like that: the temperament and the habits of the regions will be duplicated and will be conveyed in those natives these stars are culminating at the birth, so they are elevated to honours with the public favour and inclination. If they will be besieged by malefic rays, especially by Mars and Moon, those natives will be put down by the inconstancy and rebellion of the mob.


margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Among his other mystical-but-highly-intriguing concepts, Mathers (that's S.L. MacGregor Mathers, co-founder of the Golden Dawn in the late 1880's) stated (in his rarely available astrological "flying rolls") that "the initiates" considered the "Star Commando" to be that star either at the declination of the latitude of the geographical center of each continent, or, if no star were to be found within 1 degree (either side) of that place, the star which touches the horizon of that location (90-geographical latitude), just exactly as Astrojin has described in the above posting!! Mathers claimed this "Star Commando" set the astro-mundane "tone" for the entire continent involved, with "Conditional Star(s)"-each determined as above, but for the geographical center of each particular nation located on that continent-adding a secondary, specific localized influence for that country (Mathers repudiated mundane computations based upon (alleged) dates of discovering or founding of territories, nations, governments, states, cities, etc) Just as a curiosity (because I really can't say I "know" whether or not Mathers is accurate) I"ll soon post the current "Star Commando's" for each of the continents (other than Antartica!) Who knows, maybe there might be something to it??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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