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

The Devine Shekinah and the Gauquelin Sectors
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sungem



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 206
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew!!!!!!!!
Quote:
or the number of emoticons in a human emotion

. . . you're in terrible danger of me actually beginning to follow your argument Laughing
Quote:
I don't know. Let's revise the parameters and fiddle with the findings. Then we can explain anything!

Oh go on! . . . you know you love to play the devil's advocate. Very Happy
Quote:
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule identify several modes or ways of knowing; notably authoritarian knowing, received knowing, subjective knowing, procedural knowing, connected knowing, separated knowing, and constructed knowing. Connected knowing is rooted in the conviction that truth is personal, particular, and grounded in actual experience, whereas separated knowing relies strictly on linear reason. Constructed knowing integrates both connected knowing and separated knowing, and it is this latter way of knowing which astrological traditions and conventions seem to exemplify, not unlike those associated with music, art, emotions, etc.

Thank you - I never knew that before Leery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew said:
Quote:

Connected knowing is rooted in the conviction that truth is personal, particular, and grounded in actual experience, whereas separated knowing relies strictly on linear reason.


A man went to the doctor and explained that he was dead. ‘Don’t be ridiculous,’ said the doctor, ‘of course you’re not dead.’ The man insisted that he was indeed dead. The doctor asked the man whether dead men bleed. The man agreed that, no, everyone knows dead men don’t bleed. The doctor then proceeded to prick the man with a scalpel whereby he started to bleed. ‘Well, what do you know?’ said the man. ‘Dead men do bleed.’

Truth is often what you make it. Sometimes it is far easier to accept a false belief than to shift a fixed position regardless of the ‘evidence’. However, I don’t see statistics as evidence of anything other than the statistics themselves. The Gauquelin data showed that 20% of military leaders had Mars on an angle. The chance factor was rated at around 17%. Okay, that may be a fact. But regardless of the fact that there is a million to one chance of the statistics being as high as they are, these are still pretty poor odds. As Tom pointed out, this shows that most military leaders do not have Mars in this placement. There must be other factors that got the remaining 80% into these positions.

Kenneth said:

Quote:
Where does your belief that "statistics don't mean anything to the individual" come from? What's the astrological basis? To me this belief seems to directly echo the words of the skeptics, and it's an exaggeration.


I can assure you that I am not echoing anything but my own beliefs. I did statistics for two years in my undergraduate degree. It may have been quite some time ago but I know how easy it is for statistics to either be faked, misread, misinterpreted etc. It was part of my course to be able to use the same statistics to support opposing arguments. I am not for a minute suggesting that the Gauquelins falsified evidence. I don't believe that is true. However, having been given the statistics, it is often open to interpretation. That is why it is so easy for the ‘sceptics’ to mount opposing arguments using the same data. But why I say that statistics do not mean anything to the individual relates to something that Tom has alluded to. Just because an individual has Mars on an angle, it does not necessarily make them better qualified for a military career than someone who doesn’t have Mars on an angle. The fact that 20% of people already in military careers do have Mars on an angle is irrelevant to that individual. These statistics only show us that these military people have Mars in this position, not that having Mars in this position makes them good military leaders. It also tells us nothing about the state of that Mars or the state of the rest of the chart.

Tom said:

Quote:
A computer program recently determined that the number of things they found were statistically impossible to occur by chance. The "scientific" conclusion is that the Hebrew Bible was likely written by God since no man could do all this.


Is that the same as the belief that if you give enough monkeys typewriters one of them would come up with a novel? Very Happy

And speaking of God, why is it that, when it comes to astrology, absence of proof equates to disproving astrology whereas a large percentage of them are happy to accept a belief in God with no proof whatsoever?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3483
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Where does your belief that "statistics don't mean anything to the individual" come from? What's the astrological basis?


If no one else told you, I didn't read everything since my last post yet, you highlight the pasted text and click on "Quote" above.]

One example should suffice. I am a middle aged, married, college educated American male. I am quite certain that there are statistical studies that show how, according to those studies, people in my demogrpahic group would behave in a particular situation. How they are likely to vote for example, or whether or not they would like opera. However, regardless of how rigorous those studies are, they apply to a particular group. They cannot guarantee how I would behave, only provide good odds how people like me would behave in that situation. This common sense understanding does not need an astrological basis. Gamblers understand it almost intuitively.

Sue writes:


Quote:
Is that the same as the belief that if you give enough monkeys typewriters one of them would come up with a novel?


It sure seems that way. Smile

Quote:
And speaking of God, why is it that, when it comes to astrology, absence of proof equates to disproving astrology whereas a large percentage of them are happy to accept a belief in God with no proof whatsoever?


Oh Sue we need to talk. The enemies of astrology are far more likely to be found amongst the atheists than the religious. It is chic in the US right now for the left to blame all their recent political defeats on religious fundamentalists. They're quite wrong, but in their case, scapegoats make self-examination unnecessary. Let's not fall into the same trap. James Randi and Richard Dawkins are atheists. To my knowledge, the most prominent religious fundamentalist in the US, Jerry Falwell, hasn't ever mentioned astrology. I'm far more wary of statisticians who disingenuously or otherwise, manipulate opinion based on numbers alone (e.g. public opinion polls). Like a lot of other things, statistics have value; they are not omnipotent.

However, I agree that we are subject to a double standard. Our beliefs require scientific proof in order to be valid, while some beliefs of others do not. If I'm not mistaken (as I wander into an area I am woefully incompetent), gravity, the most fundmental phenomenon in physics, has no known mechanism. How do they get away with that? Leaving us all alone is a better way to behave.

Best

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh Sue we need to talk.

Any time, Tom. Smile

Quote:
The enemies of astrology are far more likely to be found amongst the atheists than the religious.

I wasn't talking about the enemies so much. Almost all scientists would agree that astrology is not valid because there is no scientific evidence to support its validity. But most scientists are Christian or Muslim. They don't seem to need any evidence to support their beliefs.

Quote:
James Randi and Richard Dawkins are atheists.

And they reject religion on similar grounds to their objections to astrology. At least they show consistency and are not being hypocritical. Yet Richard Dawkins' favourite scientist, Isaac Newton, had a belief in both.

Quote:

To my knowledge, the most prominent religious fundamentalist in the US, Jerry Falwell, hasn't ever mentioned astrology.

Yes, but we're not talking about a rejection of astrology based on religious grounds. If Jerry Falwell voiced an objection to astrology it would not be because it couldn't be proven scientifically but rather because it went against the will of God. Scientists object to astrology because of lack of evidence but they don't object to religion on those grounds.

Quote:
However, I agree that we are subject to a double standard. Our beliefs require scientific proof in order to be valid, while some beliefs of others do not.


Like you, I'm not that interested in the scientific validation of astrology, particularly validation on their terms. I don't understand the need to fit astrology into a scientific paradigm. As far as I am concened, that would lead to a reductionist attitude. Astrology is far more than that.

Cheers
Sue
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kenneth,

There is a lot to catch up with in this thread. Going back to your initial point.
Quote:

Although I hadn’t done much research, it seemed to me that I might have read somewhere that in ancient times a rising planet (in the 12th house) was auspicious

(Eze. 43:4) And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. (Eze. 43:5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Knight and Lomas describe how Solomon tried to learn the secrets of temple building from the King of Tyre, a true king. They also mention much earlier structures oriented to capture the glory of helical Venus, such as the Newgrange megalithic structure in Ireland. The efforts made to capture this glory light are apparently very ancient.


I’ve never come across any ancient text that has referred to the 12th house as auspicious. There are two elements of symbolism being mixed together here. It’s certainly true that a planet emerging in its heliacal rising is considered newly invigorated and refreshed in energy. Because risings are associated with the east, ancient astrology also recognised the eastern angle as symbolically important in matters of birth, emergence to power and uprisings. But visibility was also an important consideration – the brighter the star, the more potent its force. Hence a ‘bright star in the east’ would support an astrological prophecy of the birth of a new king, or emergence of a new world leader – the eastern aspect would relate to the fact that the force is emerging and the brightness of the star would relate to the magnitude of power.

Although ancient astrology set great store on helical risings, planets that are emerging from the Sun are not bright; they are only making their first tentative appearance. And even bright stars that are clear of the Sun don’t appear with brightness in the 12th house, (ancient astrologers would only be able to recognise ‘a bright star in the east’ if it were located in the 11th or 10th house, or at least towards the end of the 12th house). It is the lack of visibility that gives planets in the 12th house their unfortunate reputation. Ptolemy called it the house of Evil Daemon because its acute angle to the ascendant “injures the emanation from the stars in it to the Earth and is also declining, and the thick, misty exhalations from the moistures of the Earth creates such turbidity and, as it were, obscurity, that the stars do not appear in either their true colours or magnitudes” (Tetrabiblos, III.10).


The discussion on Ptolemy’s numeration of the houses is a red herring, except it confirms the importance of diurnal motion in the underlying symbolism. We know that Ptolemy is talking about what we term the 12th house because he precisely describes its location. Françoise Gauquelin refers to Ptolemy’s description of the 12th house as ‘declining’ as a gross error, saying that stars within it are ‘ascending’ not ‘declining’; but Ptolemy described it correctly according to the prevalent view - it is a declining house because the planets within it are carried away (by diurnal motion) from an angle, which is conceived as the seat of power. This view sees the angles as celestial supports that draw the planets towards them. As they get closer to the angle they get more affected by the power of the angle, but once they have passed it, they are drawn to the angle that lies ahead by diurnal motion; so 12th house planets have fallen past the eastern angle and are drawn to the midheaven, but being farthest away from the midheaven are least affected by its strength.

Because of Ptolemy’s influence I doubt you’ll find a subsequent western text that contradicts the essentially weak nature of the 12th house influence. Most have built upon it, ascribing conditions of imprisonment and inhibition, a sense of being trapped, unable to express itself freely, operating in darkness, etc. We can’t really trace house meanings much earlier back either. The oldest text that we know of which describes their meaning is the Astronomica by Manilius, and that also describes the 12th house as a “temple of ill omen, hostile to future activity and all too fruitful of bane” which “moves dejected from a cardinal point with the spectacle of ruin before its eyes” (2.865).

Manilius was less acknowledging of the eastern influence than Ptolemy. Personally I don’t see how we can have a house that fundamentally expresses loss within a quadrant that is fundamentally associated with ascension. To me the 12th house is more about curtailment and the suspension of power than the real loss of it.

You may have something here about a more ancient recognition of planets visibly emerging in the east as being revealing of some form of glory, but anything that you find in Hellenistic or traditional texts is likely to be overshadowed by the dominating symbolic recognition of decline and poor representation of light. If you want to pursue a quest for traditional support I think you’ll need to focus your efforts in pre-classical sources. Egyptian and Babylonian lore is more likely to put the emphasis on the ascending / eastern element, and would not have been so affected by the notion of angles or houses having such a limited orb of influence.

I don’t think Gauquelin’s work should be ignored, even though at the moment I agree with Tom, our understanding of this is too inadequate for practical application. It bugs me that tradition instructs us to consider a planet 5 degrees above the ascendant as partaking of the ascendant’s strength, and an astrologer like Lilly was happy to extend that orb in practice, and we have statistical evidence to suggest we should be extending it further; yet how much is too far? We don’t really seem to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
. . . you're in terrible danger of me actually beginning to follow your argument


Well, clearly, you can read, so that's a start!

Quote:
Oh go on! . . . you know you love to play the devil's advocate.


Uh, if you say so...just call me Satan's Slave, I guess...

Quote:
Thank you - I never knew that before


Okey doke. Take care.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I wasn't talking about the enemies so much. Almost all scientists would agree that astrology is not valid because there is no scientific evidence to support its validity. But most scientists are Christian or Muslim. They don't seem to need any evidence to support their beliefs.


Some scientists (the ones with integrity, perhaps?) believe that the validity of astrology, not unlike the existence of God, is a topic on which science cannot pronounce, as the meta-paradigm of astrology lies outside the proper scope of scientific investigation. Astrology embraces a non-rational (in contrast to either a rational or an irrational) worldview, whereas experimental science is, by definition, strictly concerned with linear logic and rational thought. I often tell people who ask me if I 'believe' in astrology that no, I don't. I am neither a believer nor a skeptic, for I no more 'believe' in astrology than I 'believe' in music or dancing or painting or sculpture. There can only be skeptics when there are believers to rail against the skeptics who rail against the believers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kenneth,

Quote:
“Eventually I became aware from observations, and protests from clients who had many cadent planets, that cadent planets actually tended to favor an outgoing personality, which I began to think of as “high profile,” as contrasted with “low profile” (angular planets), or “moody” (succeedent planets).”


Generally speaking, my observations follow along similar lines – cadent I connect with mutables in the natural scheme of things, and the mutables tend to be more “out there” leading to higher 'visibility'... when it comes to the 12th, perhaps more “out there” from a behind the scenes type position, for example authors or editors etc.

Afterall, “Saturn rejoices in this house (12th); Lilly notes: "for naturally Saturn is author of mischief'” … takes a certain discipline to be able to confine oneself when it comes to writing or editing etc, an author becomes a visibly mis(sing)-chief!

I think the word ‘weak’ can be somewhat misleading at times. Afterall, the 9th is the house of God, associated with the Divine, one may be weakened or humbled in the face of God (appreciation and respect for a force greater than the individual) but arriving at an understanding of human frailty I wouldn’t consider weak – I think this word requires caution as it calls for a value judgement, values being a 2nd-8th matter and necessitates a shift in perception when moving from judging the outcome of something to advising someone on their natal chart.

Cadent = Fall and the cadent houses fall away from the angles, or fall toward the angles depending which way we go, ie. primary motion, secondary motion. For example, 12th to 1st could be seen as the ‘Fall’ into physical manifestation, reversing it could be seen as withdrawal or ‘falling away’ for some higher (or lower, or behind the scenes) pursuit … and to manifest anything requires a peak of energy before it’s brought into reality after which the energy expended changes modality.

I like the way John Frawley describes the houses in his “The Real Astrology Applied”:

Quote:
"But the whole picture of the mundane houses succeeding each other in regular order like the spokes on a wheel is misleading. Rather than being a wheel, the chart is in fact an assemblage of four groups of three houses.
"Nor even are these groups divided in our usual way of seeing the four quadrants of the chart … The four angles are the structural key to the chart. The houses following each of the angular houses in an anti-clockwise direction are the ‘succeedent’ houses (2,5,8,11) because they follow or succeed to the angles.
"But the succedent houses are the last of each group of three, not the centre of it as is common to think.”



So, 4 groups of 3 Houses then this suggests H12=1; H1=2; H2=3 in terms of where energy peaks within each of the groups of three houses, ie. Frawley: “Our chart, then, can be seen less as a flat circle than as a group of four mountains, each of which has a smaller hill on either side of it.”

I noticed the earlier post in this thread on numbering and thought this might have had something to do with distinguishing between primary motion (relative to ourselves created by the Earth’s rotation – clockwise) and secondary motion as the planets move through the various signs (celestial houses) and mundane houses of the zodiac which proceeds in the opposite direction (counter-clockwise).
So when we’re looking at a chart, the primary motion is clockwise with planets rising in the East, at the Ascendant, and traversing the houses in reverse numerical order, eg. 12th, 11th, 10th while at the same time we’re seeing the planets in secondary motion traversing the houses in anti-clockwise direction, bringing ‘heaven down to earth’ (into our physical reality) for interpretive purposes. Separating the motions?

“it seemed to me that I might have read somewhere that in ancient times a rising planet (in the 12th house) was auspicious.”

Does it have to be in 12th? Or is this any planet rising before the Sun, wherever it may happen to be located? Noel Tyl has researched this from vocational pov.

With the 12th’s co-significators being Pisces and Venus, I think what you mentioned about the “Divine Shekinah” does tie in. Noting also that the 12th is feminine & nocturnal and that the Zohar identifies Israel with the Shekhinah as the “Bride of the Holy One” – unification between masculine-feminine principles.
“The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah, Recovering the Key to Hebraic Sacred Science” by Leonora Leet might be of interest to you if you haven’t already read it.

In appreciation,
TS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Everyone,

I enjoyed reading this thread. It's clear that it's not possible to discuss a topic like the shekinah and Gauquelin without bringing everyone's beliefs into the picture and exploring the relation between belief and knowledge.

Some of you present astrology as belief, apart from science. When asked "Do you believe in astrology?" someone once responded "Do you believe in cat food?". But the two are not the same. Cat food is not a system. It's not as simple as that.

Is this belief a question of faith? Meaning that you must not abandon your faith in astrology or your life will be worse? I don't think any of us thinks that.

To Gauquelin, astrological belief is based on knowledge that must come from science, which implies some sort of research. In the past, this knowledge was deleloped through a process I'd like to call practical research, as contrasted to experimental research. Practical research is developed through case studies, comparisons, and consensus through discussions. It was a very slow inductive process. Gauquelin wanted to speed things up by applying the tools of modern science.

How do we know someting in astrology? How do we assure ourselves that that knowledge is valid and that we can trust it and believe in it? What we do is we sample our experience and share with ohters. In other words, we need to do science at some level. That is what we are doing right here. At least this is one component of astrology's practical research.

Gauquelin was a good astrologer and he knew what to look for. He tested for many things and was many times disappointed. Eventually he found something that supports astrology and is replicable. There's no turning back from this point onward because one of the keys has already unlocked a door. Yes, this approach is reductionist, but that's probably the way our brains are made. Astrology does not need to be severely reductionist because modern science accepts fuzzy logic.

Gauquelin gave us a problem with houses, but he also confirmed the expected astrological properties of the planets. The connection was strange but the connection was made nevertheless. Moon goes with writers, Saturn with doctors and scientists, Jupiter with actors and politicians, and so on. We can point to these results to support the validity of our beliefs. The results turned out to be just as we said they would.

We should not be too distrustful of the statistical findings in astrology because the methods used in their discovery is only a refinement and acceleration of the slow, inductive process that astrology has traditionally used. I miss my conversations with Michel. I met him only a few times, but I thought of him as a friend. From this point astrology will proceed by large speculative leaps instead of tiny inductive steps. I know that Michel would agree with this approach and that is what I've tried to do in my book.

Thankyou Deb for your discussion about the 12th house. That puts a lot of what I'm looking for into perspective. I also like what Tumbling Sphinx wrote. I'd like to return to the notion of the rising planets (in H12) being "strong." I use quotes here for a reason. Gauquelin used the word "strong" and this is one of the points I discussed with him. I didn't think the planets should be considered to be strong in some places and weak in other places. This might clash with horary interpretation, or traditional interpretation, but I accept it intuitively. Gauquelin was never adamant about anything except dinner and he listened very openly.

My understanding, which is based on Dane Rudhyar's humanistic view of astrology, is that planets are all strong for certain things, your gifts, which you need to discover according to their placements. There are no good or bad charts. We make our planets functional or dysfunctional.

In my former practice, when I saw individuals with lots of 12th house planets these were the Gauquelin "strong". But in my mind there was nothing "cadent" or "mutable" about them. They were standout leaders, dressed to impress, they wore bangles or obvious jewelry, they had loud resonant voices, they commanded attention wherever they went, they had an irresistable beauty. They were charismatic. Not all were like this but by far the majority were. I called them the "high profile" people. They lived in the spotlight. I sometimes wondered to myself, can they ever escape the spotlight, would they ever want to?

I wonder if others who practice have seen this.

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kenneth,

Thank you for your kind words.

Quote:
“In my former practice, when I saw individuals with lots of 12th house planets these were the Gauquelin "strong". But in my mind there was nothing "cadent" or "mutable" about them. They were standout leaders, dressed to impress, they wore bangles or obvious jewelry, they had loud resonant voices, they commanded attention wherever they went, they had an irresistable beauty. They were charismatic. Not all were like this but by far the majority were. I called them the "high profile" people. They lived in the spotlight. I sometimes wondered to myself, can they ever escape the spotlight, would they ever want to?

I wonder if others who practice have seen this.”



Yes, I have. But there’s more to it than simply the house, and appearances can be deceiving … generally speaking have seen it both in overcompensatory behaviour stemming from a certain fear, and from a pov where native has confronted certain fears and surrendered to what they regard as a higher calling. Many shades, variations, tones.
Keeping it simple to my way of thinking the houses represent fields of experience … the actual planets involved indicating the energy dynamic of the individual, the sign adding a descriptive frame of reference for that energy and the houses indicating areas where that energy gets showcased.
If certain planets are within range of the angles (the pinnacles or peaks), then this energy is brought forward strongly in some way. To my mind, people are more than the sum total of their experiences. However, their experiences – the interaction of their energy with their environment/experiential field – goes a long way toward shaping future experiences and expectations.

From the pov of being able to share knowledge, experience, talents, skills with others I think Cadent/Mutable has a very important role to play and therefore the generalized descriptor of ‘weak’ doesn’t sit all that comfortably with me.

How ‘weak’ gets defined and interpreted within society’s general frame of reference varies and how this interpretation is communicated through to the querant differs according to the need presented, ie. hororary vs natal astrology etc. ‘Weak’ is not generally regarded that favourably, but if one pauses to consider how writers, actors, musicians, military generals, sportspeople illuminate weakness or vulnerability – the struggle of human frailty - and public reaction to it then I think one gets a sense of the power that resides within it.

I take the view hororary rests upon judgement, but when we step into a nativity judgement is suspended as the pendulum swings toward illuminating choices made at a deeper level. The difference between judging outcomes and judging the internal workings of individuals. Outcomes are less intimate than the individual, even though the individual is intimately involved, but when we step into a nativity there’s a deeper sanctity or trust involved that I believe precludes pronouncing judgement on another soul. Where someone is ‘weak’ or vulnerable also holds the potential for their greatest source of strength and empowerment.

Re: Cadent/Mutable, I look at it from pov that if energy didn’t ‘fall’ away from the angles or peaks it wouldn’t get shared with others – wouldn’t be disseminated into others awareness whereby it might benefit them in some way. A message, a teaching, an inspiration holds little value for anyone else until it’s delivered, the nature of it's delivery coloured by planets, signs.

“They lived in the spotlight. I sometimes wondered to myself, can they ever escape the spotlight, would they ever want to?”

Psychological needs? I think this would depend on what purpose they saw themselves as serving and to my way of thinking this comes back primarily to the planets involved and the sign, eg. planets in Leo 12th vs planets in say Virgo 12th.
There’s a wide polarity of expressions and many that fall in-between within any particular zone of experience.
I agree that statistics have their place … just as the oft (and I think unfairly) maligned Sun sign astrology has it’s place, to my way of thinking each is a step on the path that leads toward illuminating greater understandings – imo it only becomes problematic when demand dictates that one finding defines all and attempts are made to cement it in concrete at the individual level. Guiding principles vs doctrine.

I have the utmost respect for those attempting to bridge the divide by illuminating a scientific construct that forms part of interpretative rationale … but interpretation is constantly expanding the boundaries of definable limitations and requires the synthesizing of several known constructs demanding flexibility in the scientific mindset. I think anywhere the demand for rigid conformity is made across the board is the downfall in any scientific attempt to frame the greater view (astrology) within a smaller window (science).

Science may be able to quantify life, but I don’t know that it qualifies life.

Seems there’s a prevailing view that if the greater doesn’t conform to the lesser it’s invalid and the reductionist way is what contributed to the initial division between astronomy and astrology. A separation of the part from the whole.
Attempts to confine the totality of astrology within a scientific framework strikes me as akin to attempting to squeeze an elephant into an ant hole … it’s fragmentary at best.

In appreciation,
TS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kenneth,

I very impatiently tried to get some confirmation on the details of the Gauquelin sectors off the web. I couldn’t find anything in the minute I allowed myself Smile so would you mind helping out?
I seem to remember (from reading about this years back), that the sectors relate to 15 degrees before the angles and 10 degrees after the angles, but with the ascendant it’s 12 degrees after the angle. I don't think it's as simple as that but is that essentially correct?

The point I am leading to is that the real value of Gauquelin’s data strikes me as less relevant to the issue of house meanings as it is to the issue of house construction. As I understand it the ‘potency’ of the planet drops off significantly after the peak point, so somewhere, even in Gauquelin’s treatment, the cadency theme of weak expression is relevant. To simply redefine the meaning of the 12th house or to consider any planet in the 12th house ‘strong’ (or 'high profile'), even one that is, say, 30 degrees above the ascendant or on the 12th house cusp, seems to be using his results inappropriately. I can’t help wondering how the 59th Considerations of Guido Bonatus ties into this:

"consider, whether the significator be behind the cusp of an Angle 15 degrees and no more; for he shall be said to be in an Angle as well as he that is exactly there, as "Zael" affirms; whence he said before that it was not in an Angle, nor had any strength there beyond the 15th degree after the cusp of the Angle: For example. The Ascendant is 4 degrees of Taurus, and the end thereof was behind the Angle, whatever planet is posited from the 4th to the 19th degree thereof is in the angle, but what is beyond that is not; but Ptolomy seems to intimate, though he says not expressly, "that every planet who shall he 5 degrees before, or 25 degrees after the cusp, is in the Angle." Now "Zael" would clear the doubt, lest that great distance of the planet from the Angle should hinder the business."

(Anima Astrologiae: The Astrologer's Guide; facsimile edition; pp.28-29)

It is also worth reading Rob Hand’s detailed assessment of a horary quoted by Bonatus and taken from the 9th century work of Zael, (aka Zahel) at http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/journal/jojul97.html

This appears to show the use of houses centred upon the cusps, with their influence extending no further than 15 degrees into the house, after which point they are associated with the subsequent house. Admittedly the evidence is scarce but this method of division appears to fit very neatly with Gauquelin’s findings - if I understand it correctly!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3483
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenneth:

Quote:
Some of you present astrology as belief, apart from science. When asked "Do you believe in astrology?" someone once responded "Do you believe in cat food?". But the two are not the same. Cat food is not a system. It's not as simple as that


Wrong answer. When people ask me,"Do you believe in astrology?" I respond, "Everyone believes in astrology. It's not like believing in leprachauns. Astrology exists. The question is, 'Does it work?' " People who have bought into the scientific-mechanistic paradigm want to respond, "Yes it works, and here is the math to prove it." I don't think that is necessary or desireable, much less valid. We place enough people/events into pigeonholes; let's not add astrology.

Quote:
To Gauquelin, astrological belief is based on knowledge that must come from science, which implies some sort of research. In the past, this knowledge was deleloped through a process I'd like to call practical research, as contrasted to experimental research. Practical research is developed through case studies, comparisons, and consensus through discussions. It was a very slow inductive process. Gauquelin wanted to speed things up by applying the tools of modern science.


For the record, and if you knew him, you know this, in the beginning it was Gauquelin's purpose to disprove astrology. In fact his initial reports contorted the findings of his data so he could report he had succeeded. His data and methods were honest and he never stooped, as his scientific critics did, to distorting the data itself. He may have changed his mind about astrology along the way, but his initial reaction to the ridicule heaped upon him by the scientific community was to demonstrate that he had not done what the astrologers claimed. He had disproved astrology with statistics. Much of his later efforts were aimed at vindication, not proving astrology. He may have changed his attitude later in his life.


Hi Sue:


Quote:
Quote:
James Randi and Richard Dawkins are atheists.


Quote:
And they reject religion on similar grounds to their objections to astrology. At least they show consistency and are not being hypocritical. Yet Richard Dawkins' favourite scientist, Isaac Newton, had a belief in both.



Agreed but beside my point, and I did think you were talking about astrology's enemies. Thanks for clarifying. But to bolster mine: Science minded James Randi once spearheaded a movement to forbid hospitals in the US from recording birth times on birth certificates. To my knowledge no religious organization has ever made any effort to do anything other than persuade people that astrology is false. Randi and others also actively tried to prevent Kepler College from receiving its initial certifications because it promoted astrology. It is the anti-religious science minded, in my view, who are far more likely to try to force people to behave and think in a particular manner "for their own good" than the so-called "powerful" religious lobby. When we mount our chargers and point our lances towards the religious in order to protect ourselves, we are tilting at windmills.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This appears to show the use of houses centred upon the cusps, with their influence extending no further than 15 degrees into the house, after which point they are associated with the subsequent house. Admittedly the evidence is scarce but this method of division appears to fit very neatly with Gauquelin’s findings - if I understand it correctly!


This sounds like the method of domification advanced by Johannes Vehlow and used in North Indian astrology. It is an equal house system with the 1st house cusp at 15 degrees before the ascendant. Is this the true system...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

Quote:
“The point I am leading to is that the real value of Gauquelin’s data strikes me as less relevant to the issue of house meanings as it is to the issue of house construction.”


From the little I’ve read on Gauquelin’s findings I’m inclined to agree with this.
It seems his findings have a correlation with the ancient use of ‘whole-sign’ houses where angularity is regarded independently of the houses and doesn't impact the cusps, eg. if Ascendant was in Aquarius, then regardless of at what degree of Aquarius the Ascendant fell, the whole sign of Pisces forms the 2nd house, Aries the 3rd and so on … aligns the signs or ‘celestial houses’ with the mundane houses.
In addition to the findings being based on diurnal or primary motion of the planets as initially observed from Earth (clockwise East to West) which seems to corroborate existing understandings of the houses 1,4,7,10 - except with the motion going clockwise it changes the actual house numbering thereby changing which house we are referring to. From an ancient perspective, would our currently numbered 9th have been viewed as the 4th? Hmmm...
I believe ‘whole-sign’ houses have traveled down through time to be the main system still employed by Vedic astrologers.

In appreciation,
TS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

According to the Cosmic Data Bank
http://www.cd-b.com/gauquelin_sectors.htm

# GS1 - 30° above the Ascendant and 10° immediately below it, 40° in total.
# GS2 - 30° west of the MC and 10° east of the MC, 40° in total.
# GS3 - 20° below the Descendant and 10° above it, 30° in total.
# GS4 - 20° east of the IC and 10° west of the IC, 30° in total.

Gauquelin said he used Placidus houses.

The g-sectors are constructed like this so the distributions peak in the middle of these sectors. It's often been proposed that the g-sectors are the cadent houses overlaid by the orb for the angles.

Adding to this my own observation of clients with a high cadent count, I would say there's something wrong with the house interpretations. The high cadent people were not overcompensating, they are who they are. If the count was high, I could predict this before I met the client. You might call them "extroverts." The angular clients tended out to be the more nerdish "introverts." The high succeedent types tended to be "moody" or "brooding," though artistic. Of course this is only one chart factor among each whole chart I had to read, and I may not have noticed it if I wasn't looking for it, counting and comparing. Still, I may have a bias, so that's why I'm asking others.

Gauquelin said the g-sector (he called them "key sectors") planets were "strong" and that is why his results for musicians had a strong Mars peak in the 11th house (NOT in a g-sector). He explained that Mars had to be in a "weak" in order for the artistic sensibilities to emerge. I used Rudhyarist reasoning to argue that those Mars placements are just as "strong" as the g-sector Mars placements, only it produced outstanding musicians and artists, who effectively used the Mars for that purpose. My point here is that Gauquelin's findings relate to houses and not just the angles. I don't think astrologers should be trying to dismiss these results. Astrologers should be trying to explain them.

Tom,

Do you believe that astrology works? If your answer is yes, then how do you know it works?

Gauquelin always supported astrology. I asked him about how he got into astrology, and here is the story based on what he told me.

Gauquelin's father, a dentist, entertained his captive patients with astrology, telling them about themselves. Gauquelin learned astrology early and often cut school to read astrology books in a bookstore. He knew astrology intimately. His friends in school called him Nostradamus. He studied psychology in hopes that he could "prove" astrology. After he made his initial discoveries, he submitted a paper towards his dissertation, but realized he would have to wait forever for approval, so he published. As we know, his book raised a controversy, but he longed for the acceptance of the scientific community. So he decided to weed out what he considered to be abuses of astrology. For his famous test of gullibility, he offered a free chart interpretation through a newspaper ad, asking respondents to fill out a questionnaire to survey approval. He sent everyone the same reading, which he obtained from a popular horoscope service, using the data of a notorious serial killer. This test was intended to expose flaws in astrology and support his scientific approach to astrology. He also published falsifications of other studies that claimed statistical findings in astrology, pointing out demographic and astronomical flaws. Obviously he didn't support anything and everything astrological. He had a mission to improve astrology.


Andrew,

An Indian astrologer once told me that he used porphyry houses, just like I did, only the house cusp would be in the middle of the house the way I did it. So ASC would fall in the middle of the first house. I don't agree with this.

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 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