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

Eris, Haumea, and Makemake
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2883
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ariondys,

thanks for the links with more info on all this..


mark,

one of my pet peeves is the use of algol as a dumping ground for all the bad stuff that happens if a chart happens to engage algol in any way.

algol is quite an interesting star in that there appears to be a few stars as opposed to one. it is called an eclipsing binary. apparently the eclipse is on a 2.68 day cycle. i wonder if all the bad stuff associated with algol has ever been examined in relation to this eclipse cycle that the binary star is on? i can't remember who discussed this last, but i remember it being an interesting and thought provoking conversation. it is one of the most notorious stars in astrological lore..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James_M wrote:

Quote:
one of my pet peeves is the use of algol as a dumping ground for all the bad stuff that happens if a chart happens to engage algol in any way.


Hi James,

I always find it fascinating to discuss fixed stars. However, I would rather not take the thread off into this kind of tangent here and prefer to stay with the thread topic of TNOs.

Of course you could open a new thread on this. Possibly on another forum. We had an epic thread on the subject of Algol on the traditional forum some years ago but I think it may have dropped off the board by now. Below are a couple of more recent threads and a series of articles and links on the subject. You might find my response in the 2nd Skyscript forum link interesting in the light of your comments above. Although, my views have altered a bit since I posted those comments.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2263&sid=2b89243a9bd55b0557af828bb172b4b9

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3193&sid=e39501868d26088ae42e4f16beb6b805

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/algol.html

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.articoli.algol/eng.algol.html

http://ye-stars.com/WP/medusas-head

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/stars/Stars_in_longitude_order.htm

http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/Algol.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefixedstars/message/145

http://alextrenoweth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/caput-algol.html

http://darkstarastrology.com/algol-medusas-head/

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/perseus.html

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12224

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 Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An interesting website speculating on the astrological associations of Makemake and Haumea.

http://www.lunarplanner.com/asteroids-dwarfplanets/Haumea.html

Mark
_________________
‘’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
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don`t like being so dependant on wiki for my facts, I would like to be, but it`s not guaranteed stuff.

So here we have 2013 fact - 1521 TNOs with 225 of those being numbered.

Quote:
JPL Small-Body Database Search Engine
[ Refine Search ] Results: 1521 matching objects
Constraints: orbital class (TNO)

225 of those have numbers
those with names follow:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ariondys,

I'm sure your JPL data is far more reliable. Although there is a lot of information being learned about these objects and we should expect a lot of provisional data to be updated. Especially, in regards precise size and composition of the TNOs.

Interesting this puts Sedna's orbital period even longer at 12600 years. Roughly, a 1000 years a sign although I imagine the orbital quirks will mean much longer in some signs than others. Eris is an extreme case.

I do find this body Orcus interesting. Described as an 'anti-pluto' due to being in almost constant opposition to Pluto with a very similar orbital period. Plus any TNO with a connection to Lord of the Rings deserves a better look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90482_Orcus

Mark
_________________
‘’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
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2883
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi mark,

i thought you would want to keep the conversation focused on the thread title...
thanks for the links. i liked what you said on the 2nd thread.

hi ariondys,

2013 fact - 1521 TNOs

humm...

how many fixed stars are their? the fixed star crowd work with how many?

i figure the degree of subjectivity that astrologers express is in direct relation to the number of TNO's, fixed stars, arabic points, midpoints and etc. etc. they use.. the more one uses the more subjective one becomes.

martha lang-wescott uses a zillion asteriods.. she writes books on them.. she also uses midpoints - 90 degree dial and etc. etc. i don't know how she does it. i don't know how much is based on a subjective viewpoint or not.. it is a complete mystery to me, as is other astrologers work who include different astronomical positions that i haven't even considered.. to go back to the thread title - want to stay on topic even if this is the philosophy section, lol - what does anyone here know about any of these 3 bodies - eris, haumea and makemake? i know nothing..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
how many fixed stars are their? the fixed star crowd work with how many?

LOTS. They could be categorized and probably have since they are visible and have likely been written about since the invention of clay tablets. Categorizing them into brightness, color, ecliptic latitude, etc might allow one to create a manageable set. Brady, the contemporary champion uses 64 in her 2nd book. And I follow this usage and set.

Referring to them by ecliptic longitude and referring to older authors never did anything for me before. If someone wants to correct me if I say the ecliptic longitude of a star is not helpful, or if I go so far as to say meaningless, please start a thread to correct me and I`ll at least consider taking it under advisement. Don`t hold your breath though. Stars are not ecliptic devices. We can try do primary directions with them though(might be a zodiacal method involved then)

There`s like 250,000 asteroids... MLW has nice books. I have the 3 main ones and I bought the binder too. Let`s say there`s about 78, not quite so easy to draw a containment around what she uses since some of them are the 4 main asteroids, some are TNPs, Chiron is listed(it`s not technically an asteroid), and TNPs name-a-likes are additional to what I`ve counted, there`s an instance of an asteroid being referred to which is not contained in the reference material. Probably an ever growing vocabulary. I felt quite ungrounded the time I peaked into the back of the 3rd book and saw the amazing mess one can make of a triwheel stuffed full of asteroids. A flash of chiron-uranus that surely helped structure my conception of astrology mechanics. Surely something for a uranian type astrologer experienced with dial techniques.

I certainly wouldn`t recommend trying to absorb all these packets of astrology at once. I couldn`t do it with transit Apollon conjunct my Uranus, and I`m still at it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
i figure the degree of subjectivity that astrologers express is in direct relation to the number of TNO's, fixed stars, arabic points, midpoints and etc. etc. they use.. the more one uses the more subjective one becomes.

I figure objectivity is a great thing. I don`t feel like I`m too subjective. I take what`s in the chart of a subject and use reference material that is objective, that wasn`t written about them, to describe them.

I don`t want to put down subjectivity. That`s the coloring that makes astrology artful. If we can call it an Art&Sciences. I figure a natal reading with 7 planets and rulerships, and 12 houses is potentially the most subjective thing in astrology. And really, with 4 time university failure drop-out recidivism me, well seems to suggest I`m not very artistic since I took engineering, physics, computer science, geomatics(surveying). I still don`t comprehend chart synthesis as it`s presented to me. It`s hopelessly subjective unless I`m going to copy-paste paragraphs of modern or traditional X in house Y astrology.

I wasn`t taught to be subjective yet. Its always math and numbers. Probably since I was able to count to 3, before I could comprehend what multiplication was I was trying to figure that one out too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2883
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi ariondys,

it is interesting what you say and requires some thought to give a proper response! sometimes i can quickly respond with a simple answer..

using reference material, astrological cook book type ideas no matter who has put together the material is not the same as making a good observation on the person the chart represents.. assuming this is natal astrology - the person can respond any number of ways to the input being given by an astrologer.. there is so much subjectivity in the process as i see it, that in spite of the desire on the part of everyone to be as objective as possible - it isn't possible!! subjectivity always wins out as i see it even if it isn't acknowledged! now maybe you have entered my weird vortex where ((almost)) everything is subjective!!!

perhaps astrology is a lot more subjective then many of us will admit.. i know i keep on challenging basic ideas to do with astrology for this very reason that i tend to see it in this way. for me if you add more and more data to a chart interpretation, it doesn't become less subjective - it becomes more subjective!

if someone in the world of astrology could come along and say every time such and such a planet lands on such and such a point it means this - that would be objective... in fact - no one even tries to, or if they think they are, i think they are really fooling themselves... actually traditional astrology seems to like to pride itself on being able to make predictions.. i see next to none of that and even when i do it is couched in astrological terms that only an astrologer would have the slightest understanding of.. making a prediction on an election for example really is a lucky answer as i see it, especially when only 2 people are running.. all the reasons for the answer may or may not be relevant.. of course they are all very relevant to the astrologers who have a particular orientation that want to see their particular orientation succeed in producing a correct answer, but it changes none of my basic view on the extreme subjectivity of astrology..

to bring it back to the use or eris, haumea and make make - the use of these astronomical bodies will remain extremely subjective until such time as someone is able to say in a matter of fact way - if this body does this - it means this.. we can't even do that with the original planets in the solar system, let alone do it with these new discoveries... all as i see it!!!

Ariondys wrote:
Quote:
i figure the degree of subjectivity that astrologers express is in direct relation to the number of TNO's, fixed stars, arabic points, midpoints and etc. etc. they use.. the more one uses the more subjective one becomes.

I figure objectivity is a great thing. I don`t feel like I`m too subjective. I take what`s in the chart of a subject and use reference material that is objective, that wasn`t written about them, to describe them.

I don`t want to put down subjectivity. That`s the coloring that makes astrology artful. If we can call it an Art&Sciences. I figure a natal reading with 7 planets and rulerships, and 12 houses is potentially the most subjective thing in astrology. And really, with 4 time university failure drop-out recidivism me, well seems to suggest I`m not very artistic since I took engineering, physics, computer science, geomatics(surveying). I still don`t comprehend chart synthesis as it`s presented to me. It`s hopelessly subjective unless I`m going to copy-paste paragraphs of modern or traditional X in house Y astrology.

I wasn`t taught to be subjective yet. Its always math and numbers. Probably since I was able to count to 3, before I could comprehend what multiplication was I was trying to figure that one out too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I fee like a word lawyer after trying to write this. Tongue Out

objectivity
Web definitions
judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

subjectivity
Web definitions
judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts.

in that they`re both judgements, and it takes a subject to judge something... a subject must be capable of objectivity.

If I remember the myth of Ixion. And think that he was a bad guy, I`ve been subjective. I`ve formed an opinion. I could almost always substitute I think with I feel. I`ve relied on my impression, my memory.

I can look up the myth in a text. I have something I didn`t think, opine, or base on personal impression. I can paraphrase. Ixion promised payment for a bride; then didn`t pay. Ixion had the payment stolen from him, then concealed his resentment and invited him over and shoved his father-in-law into a camoflaged pit of coals.

Can I now judge objectively...

In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective Confused (rolling eyes for circular definitions)

Opinion | Define Opinion at Dictionary.com
a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

judg·ment noun \ˈjəj-mənt\
a : the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing
b : an opinion or estimate so formed

so I can form an opinion that is objective if I have sufficient grounds for complete certainty.

Ixion was a bad guy because he broke a promise. Or because he promised and didn`t pay. Revenge and murder=bad

In the 1st case, where I subjectively equated Ixion with bad. I was certain enough to make myself believe. But to make others believe I need something observable to base my judgement on. My memory isn`t qualified enough as it totally would have done a sense impression, and compressed the details into a formless wordless thought where I couldn`t even tell you anything about Ixion other than he was a mythology bad guy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2883
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi ariondys,

i don't know how to communicate my idea on this very well then! that is what i conclude. i am going to post an article i read earlier today that you might enjoy which raises the issue of fate verses free will and how we respond to the so called 'objective' bits of information we use in astrology to move thru life in a rewarding or not - way.. maybe you will have some feedback on the article.. cheers james
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AquarianEssence



Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 93
Location: Michigan, USA

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi All. I hope you don't mind my bringing this thread up so I can share a thought. Very good points have been brought up. It is true that the 10 major bodies we work with, let alone 7, cannot always sufficiently describe what a person or entity experiences. There have been times an aspect has happened, I don't see the action. There are times when I don't see a major aspect and something happens. There are so many stars and roids that it would be impossible for us to consider them all, all of the time, at least with our limited brains. But, when these occasions come up, that is when I take the time to look further to see what might have interfered, diverted the energy elsewhere or touched one of the ten that would explain the action or inaction.

To say those little pieces of rock or ice are too far to see, so not relevant, makes no sense to me. Before we were able to comprehend quantum physics, the atom was the smallest we knew and considered the foundation of matter. But we now know that isn't true. There can be an event on the other side of the earth that affects me, even though I can't see it. The stars and roids may not be the affect that can be proven scientifically and objectively, but they at least assist in describing the effect of what we experience.

When I was born, Haumea was tightly conjunct Pluto, in my 1st. Scorpio rules my 4th and disposits my void Moon. They perfected their union by secondary progression when I was 27 so I had a lot of opportunity to gain insight during that and the preceding year. There were major life changing events at that time and transits don't describe them. Uranus was well past natal Pluto, Neptune was working on a square to natal Mercury and the only thing that comes close to describing what was going on, directly connected to my 4th house and Pluto changes, was Jupiter at the north bending of the my lunar node, the Moon residing in the 4th. But, it was a time not descriptive of Jupiter at all. The only thing I can think of that Jupiter fits is it ruling my 5th and I began my oil painting then.

As for understanding the meaning without decades of research, their myth, meaning of their name, gives us the ability to immediately grasp their underlying meaning and message to the world. I also don't think it is just a coincidence that there are so many new discoveries receiving creation diety names when we are in process of discovering the source of, or at least getting a glimpse of creation through the Cern research and space exploration, just to name 2 avenues. In my example of Haumea with Pluto, bringing major changes in our family and the depth of my being, Haumea doesn't quite fit the whole picture, since she is a more loving mother goddess. But, MakeMake (my birth name is Mack) was doing his thing as the creator god, recreated and described during a time of warfare over dwindling resources, perfectly fitting what was going on, except I didn't want to face it for what it was, being the loving and adoring daughter. MakeMake caught up with and transited the face of Pluto and Haumea. Even the bird quality fit the story, there being a mobile unit involved, quite unique because this was a first in what had always been a stationary or fixed type of business. MakeMake shows his familial connection to me through being in Cancer conjunct natal Uranus, who just happens to govern my dad's Sun and my partnerships. Of course, that it might be an issue I was in denial about fits the 12th house placement at birth. I didn't fully acknowledge this dark creator quality until recent years. What's kind of ironic, and fitting the genetic heritage of Pluto ruling my 4th, is that I recently found out that one of my ancestors was sold into slavery by his father at 5 years old. Well, they called it an apprenticeship but he described his life as one of slavery, no education or religious training at all, until he left at 21 years old, to join the army.

Happy star gazing.
_________________
http://www.aquarianessence.com
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 -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 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