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

george s. patton
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2904
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:01 am    Post subject: george s. patton Reply with quote

patton has a weak chart according to tom's interpretation, or a classical astro interpretation of the chart, but all this tells me is that traditional astrological interpretations are becoming and incomplete in properly addressing the reality of his actual life..

what am i, or we missing here?

maybe vicki's interpretation of the position of the stars in pattons chart will reveal more.. perhaps some modern technique that is overlooked will also tell us more on the 'strength' of the chart. or perhaps the fact that patton's family history is one of military action needs to be considered in relation to any reading of his chart.. of course this family history is reflected directly in mars conjunct the i.c.

here is one example of a different interpretation on the chart using midpoints.. here is a quote from toms article from here - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/patton.html

"This is perhaps softened a bit with the partile sextile between the Sun and Moon, but being in the 6th and 8th house, they do not behold or 'see' the ascendant."

the sun/moon midpoint is actually considered quite important in a lot of modern astrology, as is the midheaven/ascendant midpoint. these are the 2 most important midpoints according to midpoint theory that i know.. in pattons chart - sun/moon mipoint is 19 sag 41 - less then a degree from the ascendant/descendant axis.. folks that have the sun/moon midpoint landing on an axis are thrust, or put into the public spotlight.. i suppose the major difference here between traditional astrology and modern astrology's outlook is the idea that the sun and moon in the 6th and 8th houses are stuck in bad houses, verses a consideration of the midpoint landing on the ascendant axis bringing the collected synergy of these 2 important bodies out via this midpoint.

the other midpoint i would like to point out in pattons chart is the saturn/pluto midpoint - a combo directly associated with war and a tough, tenacious, and potentially brutal duo capable of great staying power.. the midpoint of these 2 bodies is 20 gemini 08 - again landing on the ascendant axis and mingling directly with the sun/moon midpoint axis..

whether folks are interested in the use of midpoints or not, i'm curious to know how tom does or doesn't bother to explain the strength or weakness of pattons chart in relation to pattons life experience?

thanks
james
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 682

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I assume we are talking of eminence here, and Patton has an eminent chart. As per Valens, Sidereal Fortune in Pisces, Jupiter in an angle with Basis; lord of Spirit in the the 10th from Fortune as is the lord of Exaltation.

James, you should refrain from taking one person's interpretation and assuming it accounts for a diverse 1500+ years of astrological methodology.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vicki



Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 183
Location: Nottingham U.K.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moon, Saturn, Mercury all in detriment plus Jupiter in fall - puzzling indeed! Why do I keep coming across so many successful people with several afflicted planets? However that's for another thread on another day.

However Moon/Saturn and then Jupiter/Mercury could be said to be in mutual reception. Zoller debated whether or not this could strengthen planets - interesting.

My main focus however is on the fixed stars, which do show a military man.

As follows:-

I would expect to find the constellation of Orion to have a significant influence
in the chart of a military man and so it is here.
Bellatrix gamma Orionis conjoins his Asc. This is "The Mighty Man" , "The Supreme Commander"

The antiscion of Saturn is crucially important. It is angular and the ruler of the MC. It conjoins the belt stars of Orion -Al Hak'ah phi Orionis, Orion's head and also Meissa lambda Orionis also in Orion's head. Strong military connections with these stars - unbridled masculine energy.

His Lot of spirit conjoins Algenubi epsilon Leonis said to give a bold, brutish and callous nature. His Pars Hyleg conjoins 20 Hydrae - army commanders.
His MC conjoins Enif epsilon Pegasi sais by the Chinese to preside over misfortunes, dangers and death. In the West it was said to indicate vain individuals with a great deal of ambition.

Saturn would also be his undoing. He died in a road accident on 21.12.1945. Saturn was conjoining Pollux in his death chart. Pollux is the "bad boy" of the twins and the Liber Hermetis says of this star "they will be harmed in the head".
He died in a road accident but it has been alleged that he was assassinated. I concur with this view because of the astrology. Saturn gives it away for me. Note also that the date is the winter solstice when the king was sacrificed in ancient fertility rites.
Patten knew too much and they wanted rid of him.

Patten is an extremely interesting character I now realise. I could do a lot more work on his chart and uncover so much more.
He thought he had been in combat in previous incarnations including as a roman legionnaire. The concept of reincarnation is anathema to be but nonetheless his chart does reveal some psychic connections.

Interesting is the fact that Patten's Mars/Saturn part (Vettius Valens called this the "critical point") conjoins Hitler's Mercury.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2904
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konrad and vicki,

thank you both for the alternative views on pattons chart.

konrad, thanks for stating what you did in the last paragraph. i agree with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As this thread has pointed out no one can incorporate every method into every chart. And it's true that one can find positive things in almost any chart. I deliberately used the word "weak," the opposite of strong. And I pointed out the weakness of most of the planets in his chart. I give priority to essential dignity when I"m determining whether a planet is essentially weak or essentially strong. How so many essentially weak planets can be interpreted as a strong chart is beyond me.

Eminence is something else. I would concede that an essentially weak chart can have signs of eminence. We may not like him, but Adolph Hitler had nearly every planet except the ASC ruler, Venus in detriment of fall. And Venus was retrograde and conjunct two debilitated malefics. Yet Hitler became, albeit for all the wrong reasons, an eminent man. He was praised by every major news outlet in the US.

The discussion therefore, seems to be not over whether he has a weak chart, but if there are enough frankly minor thing that can help him overcome it. Yes there are military signatures in his chart - mine too.


Quote:
Patten knew too much and they wanted rid of him.


This was debunked in the 1960s. But a little common sense tells us there is no way to assassinate one man in a car with three or four others with a low speed crash where no one else got hurt. How is that remotely possible? The "assassination theory" was examined by a Patton biographer Ladislas Farago and found wanting. Most recently Bill O'Reilly's book suggested an assassination, but that was quickly dismissed by Carlo D'Este a more recent biographer whose exhaustive biography "A Genius for War, is a must read.

Quote:
The antiscion of Saturn is crucially important. It is angular and the ruler of the MC.


I don't understand this sentence. The antiscion of 8 Cancer is 22 Gemini detriment rules the MC. Mercury in detriment rules the ASC.

Quote:
It conjoins the belt stars of Orion -Al Hak'ah phi Orionis, Orion's head and also Meissa lambda Orionis also in Orion's head. Strong military connections with these stars - unbridled masculine energy.

His Lot of spirit conjoins Algenubi epsilon Leonis said to give a bold, brutish and callous nature.


I would quibble with "callous nature" but none of this points to success. The success came from his using what he had to its maximum. Most of us don't go anywhere near that effort. We all claim astrology is not fatalistic, yet when we see a chart that overcomes the apparent limitations, we say it can't be so. He must have a strong chart. That's a priori reasoning - not sound astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Vicki



Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 183
Location: Nottingham U.K.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom

I would just ask your opinion about the question of mutual reception that I mentioned. As I said, Robert Zoller did query whether this could dignify the planets.

Do you think it could strengthen those afflicted planets?

Also regarding "callous nature", well he was reported as striking young soldiers because of what he perceived as their cowardice. A military man probably couldn't get very far without being callous. No niceties on the battle field.

I accept that it isn't definite he was assassinated and you know more about him than me but his death chart does show him being hit in the head. Obviously that could be a head injury in the car accident.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

His death was caused by an injury to his neck and spine caused by his hitting his head on the seat in front of him in the crash. Patton was a military history junkie. He and several others were being driven to go hunting I think. The driver was young and new and probably in awe of his famous passenger. Patton was talking about a great battle that had taken place where they were driving. He got excited and blurted out 'Now! Look over there" and he leaned forward and pointed to an area where he was about to explain how the battle turned. The driver, hearing the general give an order, immediately looked up and when he did, he ran into a parked or stalled vehicle. He was driving less than 25 mph as he was slowing down when he heard the general. No one else was hurt and in fact Patton thought he was OK, too, until he tried to move.

If one is going to command armies and has to make decisions that require sending men to their deaths day in and day out, a certain amount of callousness is required. No general would be effective if they were too sensitive to what they had to do. Patton did slap two soldiers in separate instances. He thought he was motivating them. After the incidents but before they became well known, he admitted he "kicked a few butts."

When the incidents were reported and got back to Eisenhower he asked the press to sit on the story as Patton was too important to the war effort. They all agreed. But one reporter, Drew Pearson, wasn't there and considered himself exempt from the agreement. He blurted out the story. It's difficult to say, given the rest of his career, whose side Pearson was on.

Americans reacted against Patton and demanded he be fired. But let's look at this from a different perspective. One guy screwing up in combat can get a lot of other guys killed. Patton didn't believe in "battle fatigue" as it was called then. Today it is PTSD. He thought he was helping restore their self respect and make them useful to their unit. In WWI they might have been shot. Americans saw it as insulting and an action beneath the dignity of a general. The Germans refused to believe the Allies would dump a highly successful general because he slapped a couple of privates that they would have shot. They saw his demotion a a ruse.

Contemporary German military historians believe that had Patton been turned loose on D-Day instead of being punished for slapping two soldiers, Germany would have been forced to surrender by November 1944. Drew Pearson got tens of thousands of men killed just to advance his career, not to mention the Russians never would have taken over Germany and perhaps little or none of Eastern Europe.

I don't believe mutual reception strengthens much of anything. In this case both planets are in detriment. I don't see how two weak planets combining forces can make each other strong. I recall a quote by Zoller on this topic: "It's like two drunks helping each other home. It's not much help, but it's some.

I'm going to put together something about the condition of the planets in his chart and maybe post it tonight.

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 Oct 25, 2016 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One more word on the slapping and callous bit. It should also be noted that after the war, while he was still in Germany, ordinary soldiers would ask to see the famous general and he would usually see them. They came to thank him for making them realize they had so much inside themselves that they could accomplish so much coming from such humble origins. Those men went home changed and mostly for the better. We can disagree that his methods weren't always appropriate or even right, but that was his reason. He believed in his troops more than they believed in themselves. Go read up on the Battle of the Bulge and the Third Army to see what they accomplished under the worst of circumstances. And when the battle was over and soon after Germany surrendered, when Patton was credited for his part he (and Omar Bradley) always credited the foot soldiers. The few remaining WWII vets under his command do not say, "I was with the Third Army, or even, "I was at the Bulge." They say, "I was with Patton."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2904
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:


I don't believe mutual reception strengthens much of anything. In this case both planets are in detriment. I don't see how two weak planets combining forces can make each other strong. I recall a quote by Zoller on this topic: "It's like two drunks helping each other home. It's not much help, but it's some.


hi tom,

thanks for chiming in here and adding your perspective on pattons chart. obviously you have studied up on the man and i haven't. right there is an important difference for anyone involved in astrology who hopes to understand a chart better - the one who knows the person, or the history of the person, will be in a much better position to decipher the astro better in all probability, excluding some other factors.

i want to take up the question of just how much planets in signs tell us, relative to other means of interpreting a chart... in modern astrology a greater emphasis has often been put on aspects and outer planets, and many in the traditional astrological community could rightly say - an over emphasis to the detriment of those practicing this type of astrology. but, i think it is an interesting parallel so i offer it up here.. why do planets in signs matter so much? and there is the sticky topic of what happens if an astrologer is practicing sidereal, as opposed to tropical astrology where a different zodiac is in use. curious minds will come up with a number of different possibilities in this obvious quagmire as well..

then there was the topic of helio, as opposed to geo positions and just what that might account for, which was brought up by isaac starkman in previous thread where the topic of patton recently arose.

i am about to read another book by wendell berry, interestingly titled "The Way of Ignorance" and other essays... if i can just quickly summarize in my own way what i believe is some of the gist of this title, it is our ignorance, not our knowledge that really informs us.. making mistakes and thinking we know something when in fact we might be better acknowledging how little we know and how much of what we have learned has been hard gotten thru trial and error and countless dead end paths, seems beneficial.. and i think it is more likely to lead to an open mind, or a mind that's curious about other ways of perceiving (in this case - an astrological chart) where we acknowledge at the beginning our ignorance, or lack or real wisdom about the nature of astrology, the symbols, and what all of it might mean.

obviously that is not a place of comfort, but one more likely to induce fear!!

this idea of eminence being separate from what one would define as a weak chart strikes me as odd and off kilter.. i am not sure how that is being rationalized, but i fail to understand how the 2 add up - eminence and a weak chart... i am mystified by those attempting to accepting both ideas of a weak chart and an eminent chart together..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still intend to put up something along these lines using Patton's chart for an example. It is also my intention to use Morinus' methods to make the point. This does not mean this is the only way to understand anything, but it is one way and the more I study his work the more sense it makes to me. So to answer your question about the significance of planets in signs, I offer the following:

Planets have a nature, each one is different from each other. Mars does things Venus does not and Venus does thing Saturn does not. The old way of looking at this is that the planets give off some kind of influence. We can use that metaphorically. So Jupiter gives off the influence of its nature equally and without discrimination throughout the entire world. Signs qualify that influence. So Jupiter in Leo does not give off the same influence as Jupiter in Scorpio, but Jupiter in Leo gives off the same influence throughout the world equally and without discrimination. hhe same is true regardless of what sign Jupiter occupies.

Where the differences emerge is in the houses or areas of life. Jupiter in Leo may be the same throughout the world equally and without discrimination, but Jupiter in Leo in the first is not the same as Jupiter in Leo in the 5th. The Jupiter in Leo is the same, but Jupiter "behaves" differently or his influence produces different results in the different houses. Or in Morin's words, Jupiter in Leo in the fifth is determined to things that Jupiter in Leo in the first is not. Jupiter in Scorpio in the First is not the same as Jupiter in Leo in the first.

From this standpoint, the signs are very important,if we are to correctly read their significance, and it does matter whether we read the chart sidereally or tropically.

The other considerations of planets in signs and houses is tackled in some detail in Book 21. I will now make one up off the top of my head and in the next post I'll do so specifically in Patton's chart. Jupiter in Sagittarius in the 10th, is a benefic planet, in good cosmic state (in domicile) in a good house. Jupiter has an analogy with success and therefore with the tenth house. From this we can conclude that the native will likely be successful in his chosen endeavors. However Jupiter in Gemini in the 10th is something else. Jupiter is still benefic, but in poor cosmic state (detriment), and in a good house. So Jupiter will realize the promises of the 10th, but in limited quantity.

Saturn has no analogy with success. Quite the opposite. But Saturn in Libra in the 10th is a malefic planet, in good cosmic state (exaltation), in a good house. Saturn is more likely to deny success than grant it. But if success comes, it won't last or the native will regret it.

Again the signs are very important. This of course leads to the question of which signs, or at least that is what the siderealists will say. That is a different topic, but this technique might be a way to compare the methods sensibly.
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: Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Venus is probably the strongest planet in Patton’s chart by essential dignity. She is in her triplicity and according to Morin’s system, she would be the participating triplicity ruler. Venus is a benefic planet in poor cosmic state in a house that can go either way. The 7th will get you married or sued or attacked by an enemy or result in a wonderful business partnership. Venus is a feminine planet in a feminine sign, Capricorn. She is opposed to a seriously debilitated Saturn in Cancer (detriment). She is getting no help from any benefic planet. Her celestial state therefore is poor.

There are three considerations here, and I’ll let Morinus make an observation:
“Furthermore, any planet in adverse celestial state, such in exile (detriment), retrograde, in bad aspect to malefics, and receiving no good aspects from benefics can be considered malefic universally and for the whole world …”

She’s close, so let’s look at the three possible conditions;
“However, a benefic in a fortunate house in a state which is adverse by sign or through aspect either grants nothing, or grants things attended by difficulties, or through evil means or which at best are scanty, spurious, unreliable, or of little use.
A benefic in an intermediate state grants more than if it were in an adverse state, but with respect to quality, quantity, stability and duration, it will act with only moderate results.

On the other hand, a malefic in an adverse celestial state, but in a good house, … will not grant the good of that house … but rather will prevent these should come about …”

We can say that Venus is closer to being in an intermediate state than a full blown malefic because of her dignity by triplicity. The fact that she is in triplicity saves her some grief. Venus has an analogy with marriage as does the 7th house, so this is part of its significance in this chart. Patton’s marriage was hardly ideal. He was absent for long periods of time. He carried on some affairs about which is wife looked the other way, chalking it up to the stresses of combat. If the effect (stressful marriage) was shown by Venus in 7, what were the causes? We can find those by looking at the houses Venus rules. Taurus is on the 12th and Libra is on the 5th – nice signature for affairs. Also Patton wanted a son, and they had only produced daughters, he tried to hide his disappointment, but it showed. He would eventually have a son who would also become a tank commander.

In a previous post I mentioned that Patton’s greatest successes occurred while progressed Venus transited his MC. Morin never mentioned secondary progressions as far as my reading has shown. If this happened in a solar return he would have pointed out that Venus is in the house of War in the nativity and her coming to the 10th in a solar return would have indicated great success in war (or other 7th house matters) as she is in the sign of her exaltation on the MC.

This is the best planet in the chart. Let’s look at Saturn in Cancer in the first. This is a malefic planet in a good house in terrible condition.

This is mentioned above. The good things of the first will be prevented or some of them. He had a pretty good life despite personal family hardships that occurred before he was born. The Pattons were from Virginia and their property and wealth was destroyed in the American Civil War. Patton’s grandmother, his grandfather was killed in combat, took the family to California rather than be governed by an occupying army. One of her children was his father. The first house, in addition to life and the body also rules our mentality, general health, morals, temperament, etc. Mercury in Sagittarius rules this house. Saturn is in the 2nd sign, but first house. And Mercury has an analogy with the mental faculties. Despite flights of fancy by critics, Patton was not ever even close to psychosis. However he did suffer from what we would call learning disabilities. The cause is less clear in this chart, but Saturn also rules the 9th and he had problems in school that he overcame. He was tutored at home until he was about 11. The family considered “Georgie” to be “slow,” but lovable. He never got the hang of spelling but he did learn to read. He read widely and developed methods of retention which usually involved rote memorization. He went to a private school, was accepted at VMI and finally West Point. He had the native intelligence, but there were whatever misfires in the brain that cause such problems. The opposition to Venus probably helped what was otherwise a lost cause planet.

Another source of some help would be the Moon, Saturn’s dispositor. Saturn does not have an analogy with the first house, but the Moon does (morals, imagination). Patton believed in reincarnation, a belief thoroughly outside the Christian tradition that he was raised in. Saturn is in mutual reception with the Moon. This is what would be called an acquired analogy allowing Saturn to function better than he would if he had no analogy with the first at all. The Moon is in detriment, but she helps a little as Saturn helps her. But the Moon acquires analogy since Saturn does have an analogy with the 8th. So we get Moon (life) continuing in one way after death (Saturn).

It might be that what permitted Patton to overcome these difficulties that are all over the chart, is the little bit of help everywhere. Mars has no analogy with the 4th house, but Mars acquires analogy from an aspect from Saturn. Mercury is in mutual reception with Jupiter etc. However all the efforts he made were in response to the difficulties imposed by the essential weakness of the planets in this chart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Vicki



Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 183
Location: Nottingham U.K.

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom

I have only just come back to this thread so I am backtracking a bit although I don't wish to disrupt the discussion which I am not able to join.

First of all I wish I hadn't got into the semantics of the word "callous" and the issue of slapping. I am one of the last people to seek to take some anachronistic, politically correct view of the war. I am well aware of what was needed to be done to win the war. My late father served in North Africa.

Regarding the fixed stars in Patton's chart you said "Yes there are military signatures in his chart - mine too."
This seems to imply a rather dismissive attitude to fixed stars but perhaps my reading of that is incorrect.
James suggested that my interpretation of the fixed stars might reveal more about Patton's chart so I decided to have a look at them and his chart came to life, as all charts do. I work with the symbolism and mythology of the fixed stars but from a traditional standpoint. I am currently working with texts such as the Liber Hermetis, the Mathesis et al. with regard to the Sphaera Barbarica / Myriogenesis and their relation to fixed stars.


On another matter you said, " We all claim astrology is not fatalistic,"
Well I suppose it depends what you mean by "We all " but I personally claim no such thing ! I realise I am out of step with much of present day thinking but I am not out of step with the stoic astrologers such as Vettius Valens and Firmicus Maternus. Even the early moderns such as Charles Carter and W. Frankland and their remarkable, much overlooked work with the prediction of death, accidents and illness lends weight to my viewpoint.

This was just an aside and a late reply to your earlier posts. As I said, I did not wish to disrupt the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My writing was aimed at the general readership at Skyscript and should not be interpreted as an answer to any specific post written by anyone. I was thinking in terms of the overall discussion not any individual. I do reference specific quotes from time to time, but they are often for clarity.

My father was in the US Navy and made convoy runs to North Africa and through the North Atlantic. We have something in common.

I didn't mean to be dismissive of the fixed stars. They can be and are quite revealing. But to me they color the chart or give added emphasis to what is already there. This is what I meant by having military signatures. I have Regulus on my ASC, just like Donald Trump. Neither one of us served in the military. I have Mars conjunct the ASC in a Gauquelin sector as well. However Patton has Mars on the 4th cusp and he came from a military family. The stars emphasized that in his chart, whereas in mine they might only signify attitude.

"We all" was kind of sweeping and I usually post things that are written off the top of my head and with careful editing, I might change things if the setting were more formal. Or my wife could be calling me for dinner and I just post without editing. I meant that "astrology is not fatalistic" is a common saying among astrologers - many, many astrologers. And I think that's true that most astrologers would quickly deny fatalism, but the sentence was intended to be very general. The point is that people who argue astrology is not fatalistic, are in a logical bind if they claim a successful person must have a strong chart. I see that as reasoning from the conclusion - the native is successful - to the premise, therefore the native must have a strong chart. To summarize my entire point: successful people do not always have strong charts just as unsuccessful people do not always have weak charts. To believe otherwise embraces the fatalism many astrologers try to avoid. One of the strongest charts I've ever seen (by essential dignity) belonged to a man who couldn't hold a job. [I no longer have it]

The death business is something else and it demonstrates what I believe to be a problem within astrology. If we can predict things with accuracy, then we can predict death. But if we think we can predict things with accuracy, then we are being fatalistic. The implied fatalism is what troubled early Church leaders like Augustine and later Aquinas. Modern astrologers solve this problem by claiming we can't predict anything. We can only perform character analysis. That's fatalistic too. But we're drifting to another subject.

Astrology as conceived seems to me to embrace a hierarchy that was common thought to those who developed it and later worked with it. Contemporary westerners living in democratic societies don't see things like this. We are of the "all men are created equal" persuasion. That's a good thing for human dignity, but it doesn't seem to fit astrology. To me astrology was conceived as a hierarchy and within that hierarchy the planets are stronger in influence than the stars.

Boiled to its essentials, I don't believe that fixed stars or aspects or anything else can make a fundamentally weak chart (i.e. weak planets) into a fundamentally strong chart. I also don't believe that a fundamentally weak chart entirely prevents personal success. It just makes it more difficult, and perhaps it's not as long lasting or as good as it could have been. These last two apply to Patton's chart. His difficult personality made it difficult for his superiors to see his full potential. He was in many instances, his own worst enemy. That personality resulted in his being held back until after D-Day. It is with hindsight that we see the profound significance of his accomplishments and their contributions to the war effort. They could have been even greater. I think this is where his weak chart kicks in. He unwittingly stopped himself. We all have flaws.

I'm sorry for the misunderstandings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Vicki



Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 183
Location: Nottingham U.K.

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom. Thank you.

You said :-

"Astrology as conceived seems to me to embrace a hierarchy that was common thought to those who developed it and later worked with it. Contemporary westerners living in democratic societies don't see things like this. We are of the "all men are created equal" persuasion. That's a good thing for human dignity, but it doesn't seem to fit astrology. To me astrology was conceived as a hierarchy and within that hierarchy the planets are stronger in influence than the stars."

I completely agree with that although I might allow just a little more influence for the fixed stars Wink

Also my original post on this thread covering material other than the fixed stars was somewhat ill considered. I should not have made rash statements about the alleged assassination without further research. I was writing in too much of a rush and as you say we don't always have time for editing.

I would like, on another occasion, to qualify my views on astrology and fatalism. I would just say that I see astrology as being fatalistic "for all practical purposes" by which I mean to suggest that something else is going on beyond our current comprehension, but as I say, further discussion would be for another time.

Returning to the main theme of this thread; the issue of "strong" and "weak" charts troubles me. I keep coming across the charts of successful people with several planets in detriment or fall and wonder how this can be. Obviously each individual's chart needs careful delineation but at first sight it appears strange. I can understand my own Mars in Taurus ! Wink

Anyway Tom thank you for your interesting post which I enjoyed reading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1213
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vicki wrote:
Quote:
Returning to the main theme of this thread; the issue of "strong" and "weak" charts troubles me. I keep coming across the charts of successful people with several planets in detriment or fall and wonder how this can be. Obviously each individual's chart needs careful delineation but at first sight it appears strange.

The answer to this dilemma can usually be found in the sidereal zodiac which was the zodiac in use when astrology as we know it was born with its doctrine of planets in their exaltation and fall. (Detriments weren't part of early astrology.) As astrologers, long ago we should have carried out research projects comparing planets in signs in both zodiacs for well known people. I have informally done this for many years, but structured research is needed.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology 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