It depends on what you mean by observation. Since astrology is about correspondences, correspondences are what we should be trying to see. However, it's not as straightforward as you might think. Correspondence implies regularity and thus predictability, but no single observation taken in isolation can establish that the development that coincided with it this time will coincide next time and the time after that. We need multiple observations of the same configuration to see what consistently coincides with it. If it doesn't consistently coincide with "the same thing" we have nothing to predict. Hence if "see[ing] for ourselves" means deciding that a configuration and effect go together if the latter "fits the symbolism" we're fooling ourselves. However, if we decide that they go together after seeing them together again and again we're on much more solid ground. (If it sounds like I have an animus against astrological symbolism, I do. For some thoughts about symbolism, astrological causation, research methodology and much more see my article After Symbolism.)observation would seem to be the most valuable asset we have when learning more about astrology. we can learn different astrological methods and we can see for ourselves whether they work for us or not. i think this partly explains why their is such diversity in the astro community.. i see astrology as more art then science, but i am always drawn to those who have a more scientific approach in so far as i think astrological ideas need to be put to the test of statistical analysis..
The fact that the Gauquelin peaks are about 8-9° past the angles has fostered the notion that they're "in" the 12th and 9th houses, but there are problems with this idea. One, the "plus zones" cover the last third of the 1st and 10th houses and the first two thirds of the 12th and 9th, so aren't coextensive with house boundaries. Two, if it were a house relationship there'd be twelve different Mars effects. Instead, there's one Mars effect, call it unlaziness, present when Mars is in a plus zone and absent when it isn't. Three, it's not certain that the Gauquelin peaks really are off the angles. In Recent Advances in Natal Astrology Geoffrey Dean, citing busy-ness in the delivery room, difficulties of fathers in the 1800s in getting and conveying birth info to the authorities, and other factors, suggests the possibility of an average lateness factor in the recording of the birthtimes.* John Addey shows that if the Gauquelin birthtimes (many from the 1800s) are adjusted about thirty minutes the peaks fall right on the angles. Finally, Dean notes that in a study of athletes born after 1945 the peaks were closer to the angles, which suggests to me that an average lateness factor, especially for those born in rural areas, does exist but is getting smaller due to more stringent records creation and keeping practices. What the Gauquelin work has done is show the validity and suggest the effects of the aspects (mostly hard-angle) of certain planets to the subject's birth location.the work of the french couple - michel and francios gauguelin are a good example of this . i think the work they've done was successful in challenging/upending some of the more traditional approaches to astrology, specifically house systems and the idea of angular, succedent and cadent meaning. to quickly summarize - planets in cadent positions were found to have a direct association with the profession of outstanding individuals in there particular area of expertise..
. For some thoughts about symbolism, astrological causation, research methodology and much more see my article After Symbolism.)
ExactlyIt depends on what you mean by observation. Since astrology is about correspondences, correspondences are what we should be trying to see.
However, it's not as straightforward as you might think.
Correspondence implies regularity and thus predictability, but no single observation taken in isolation can establish that the development that coincided with it this time will coincide next time and the time after that.
We need multiple observations of the same configuration to see what consistently coincides with it. If it doesn't consistently coincide with "the same thing" we have nothing to predict. Hence if "see[ing] for ourselves" means deciding that a configuration and effect go together if the latter "fits the symbolism" we're fooling ourselves.
However, if we decide that they go together after seeing them together again and again we're on much more solid ground. (If it sounds like I have an animus against astrological symbolism, I do. For some thoughts about symbolism, astrological causation, research methodology and much more see my article After Symbolism.)
I entirely agree that the foundation of a natal chart is an exact birth time - furthermore assuming an accurate astrological interpretation to follow from an incorrect birth time is IMO unrealisticThe fact that the Gauquelin peaks are about 8-9° past the angles has fostered the notion that they're "in" the 12th and 9th houses, but there are problems with this idea. One, the "plus zones" cover the last third of the 1st and 10th houses and the first two thirds of the 12th and 9th, so aren't coextensive with house boundaries. Two, if it were a house relationship there'd be twelve different Mars effects. Instead, there's one Mars effect, call it unlaziness, present when Mars is in a plus zone and absent when it isn't.
Three, it's not certain that the Gauquelin peaks really are off the angles.
In Recent Advances in Natal Astrology Geoffrey Dean, citing busy-ness in the delivery room, difficulties of fathers in the 1800s in getting and conveying birth info to the authorities, and other factors, suggests the possibility of an average lateness factor in the recording of the birthtimes.*
John Addey shows that if the Gauquelin birthtimes (many from the 1800s) are adjusted about thirty minutes the peaks fall right on the angles.
Finally, Dean notes that in a study of athletes born after 1945 the peaks were closer to the angles, which suggests to me that an average lateness factor, especially for those born in rural areas, does exist but is getting smaller due to more stringent records creation and keeping practices. What the Gauquelin work has done is show the validity and suggest the effects of the aspects (mostly hard-angle) of certain planets to the subject's birth location.
*Dean later demurs, stating, "However this intriguing explanation is not supported by direct evidence." His interpretation of the two pieces of evidence he cites is, however, unconvincing. That the position of the peaks is unaffected by the precision with which the time was recorded (nearest hour, half-hour, or quarter-hour) is irrelevant, and that registered times hardly differed from hospital times in a study shows only that the fathers rarely erred in passing on the times given them, not that the hospitals got the times right in the first place. Besides, the latter study was from Paris 1923-30 whereas many (most?) of the Gauquelin births were rural and from the 1800s, so it's apples and oranges.
How many French painters did you find? I went to Astrodienst but the data collections I saw were just (clickable) names listed alphabetically. Did you have to separate out the painters by hand, or are they available as a separate database? It would take a seriously large n to get significant results with times rounded to the nearest hour. Of course, that's what sets the Gauquelin work apart, in addition to the rigor of the methodology, large n. At least rounding or birthtime errors won't (well, shouldn't) lead to spuriously significant results. Rather, they even out a distribution and flatten peaks. The implication is, if all the Gauquelin data were accurate to the minute the peaks would be even narrower and taller. It would be nice to see those experiments repeated using more recent data.Hi spock-- I've looked at a bunch of charts for illustrious French men born in the 19th or early 20th centuries, as posted in the Astrodienst Astro-DataBank. I was interested in French-born painters, to see how Venus and Neptune stacked up.
To me the big problem was that nearly all of these artists' births prior to around 1920-1930 were rounded to the nearest hour! Given how sensitive the angles are to minute-by-minute time changes, I just found this poor level of resolution to be really problematic. I suspect that a lot of French people were born at home in the 19th century, but even so-- rounding to the nearest hour seems to have been an administrative sort of decision by the recorders' offices.
I was about to say rounded off times shouldn't affect the positions of peaks, since about half each would be rounded to the next and previous hours, but of course if there was a persistent tendency to round forwards that would cause the rounded times to be an average of 30 minutes late. But if rounding was pretty consistently to the nearest hour it wouldn't affect the positions of the peaks, just the effect size (lower).as for the french birth data, and as waybread pointed out, i too noticed a rounding off of the time from looking at some of the data directly, so any comment on how exactly the planets in the charts of prominent individuals lines up - whether on the angle or in the vicinity of the angle is more speculation given the issue of rounded off times..
If the Mars effect (or the Jupiter, Saturn, etc. effect) is a house effect the four plus zones should correspond to four different effects and there should be eight other plus zones, each exactly 30° in length, for eight other effects. Instead there's a single effect that's "on" in four zones 90° apart and "off" in between, which describes a hard-angle series of aspects. The only question is, what's being aspected? The answer is, the birthplace, or more specifically the person who was born there.these are many of the conundrums astrologers find themselves in when trying to get more solid data to support an astrological premise.. you need to fit the data with a theory on house systems that may or may not be popular in the present time frame.. 12th house becomes 1st house and on and on it goes.
Since the symbolism of any given configuration can be made to fit virtually any outcome, astrologers are "right" more often than there are things to be right about. Hence symbolism, along with a multitude of factors and methods, and loose logic (e.g. geo Mars square helio Venus), enables us to think astrology "works for me" even though we actually know very little about the nature and extent of correspondences between earth and the heavens. The first section of After Symbolism indicates how neophytes learn these (heretofore necessary) techniques of self-deception. In the succeeding sections I show how to go about creating a different kind of astrology based on observation rather than word games, and I also give a brief, causal account of how the kinds of astrological effects that I think exist could exist.without reading your article, what part of astrological symbolism do you take issue with, or is it just all of it? perhaps i will have to read your article.. thanks again for the comments. - james
I'm appreciative of the food for thought spockIf the Mars effect (or the Jupiter, Saturn, etc. effect) is a house effect the four plus zones should correspond to four different effects and there should be eight other plus zones, each exactly 30° in length, for eight other effects.
Instead there's a single effect that's "on" in four zones 90° apart and "off" in between, which describes a hard-angle series of aspects. The only question is, what's being aspected? The answer is, the birthplace, or more specifically the person who was born there.
I don't think anyone who has read many of my posts can suggest with a straight face that I don't have astrology's best interests at heart! - i don't think anyone did either..
But I don't view astrology as "my mother, right or wrong." nor do i. There's no Nicene creed or loyalty oath. Nor should there be. It's sort of like if Mum is an alcoholic or has maxed out her credit card, the kids need to (a) recognize that there is a problem and be straight with Mum about it; and possibly (b) help get her life on a better footing if she is able to listen to them. absolutely..
With astrology of any description, I think we have to approach it with some discernment, and figure out the differences between the good and not-so-good. Astrology doesn't get weaker because we diagnose its problems. you are preaching to the choir.. We shouldn't ignore them. If we just close our eyes and ears to any problems due to some misguided loyalty, we only further contribute to the widespread societal belief that "astrology is primarily a joke." are you closing your eyes and ears or suggesting i am?
But here's the thing about the Gauquelins and the angles. With a whole sign or equal house system-- as you know-- the MC/AC axis are merely sensitive points buried somewhere within a house. this is technically incorrect..the mc is a sensitive point in w-s or equal house system,whereas the ascendant axis forms the backbone to both these house systems.. it is the reverse in midheaven based systems which you appear unfamiliar with here. And these sensitive points could be anywhere from one to three houses off the so-called angular houses dpending upon the person's birth circumstances. the angles are the angles, regardless of the type of house system one uses.. being square the ascendant is not the same as on the midheaven, or on the midheaven angle necessarily.. you appear to not understand thi based on your following comment here - With an unequal house method, the MC is always going to start the 10th house; and the AC, the first house. Well, this discrepancy could matter a lot depending upon how one interprets the angles and houses according to the Gauquelin findings, because the peaks of the Gauequelin chart could vary in terms of which house they fall into. In an unequal house system, they might not be in cadent houses at all; which would have a lot to say with how we interpret them Gauquelin-wise. it does matter what house system the gauguelins were using and this is where it could be very interesting.. aside from this 36 house system they used it may have been built onto placidus, which would embrace the many conflicts astrologers regularly find themselves in with regard to house systema. when they were doing the research placidus was the de facto house system in use by the majority in the west.
It matters greatly, at least in the interpretation of the Gauquelins' findings in terms of chart interpretation whether someone has Mars in the 9th or the 11th house.
Maybe they addressed this problem somewhere in their work. Anyone?
Also, time and space apply to all house systems. "Distance" is a spatial concept.