Stuck in a Conundrum!

sandstone

Banned
hi moog,

we can always make adjustments to make astro appear a few different ways. ali's mars is in 10th whole sign regardless of whether one switches into sidereal or not.. i was mostly giving an example of a sidereal mars in taurus that seemed just as effective.. i looked at a few whereby mars would be in cancer sidereal too. that was all i was thinking with that example which wouldn't hinge any on the time of day he was born.

as for the gauguelin material and taking apart - i agree that it is good to try to breakdown all of the ideas and work of others in astrology regardless the era.. i think "tearing apart" might be what i see some folks wanting to do with gauguelins work, which is different then taking it apart. either way the work the gauguelins did warrants consideration.. it plays into our ideas about house systems as well.. dr farr correctly points out at the time they did their work, the whole-sign house system wasn't known.. one does wonder how much this would have altered the results.. unfortunately i am unaware of anyone doing research at present in a similar manner.. i think it would be of great benefit to astrology if someone was.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Right-and I am not knocking the research, understood within its own parameters and also understood as to the methodology used. Kepler did much the same, dropping signs and houses from consideration and looking only at planets and a large number of aspects, in his method. And of course the Gauquelin research ultimated in their putting forth their own astrological model, which they called "Neo-astrology", so, in a sense, in addition to being researchers they were also "system builders" as well. I have found some insights in their "Neo-astrology", but for me it is a much reduced model for astrological delineation (but that's just my opinion) I wonder what percentage of their research regarding sectors would have been affected had whole sign house format been known to them and incorporated: in other words, I wonder what % of results would there have been if planets assigned by quadrant systems to the 12th house, were actually in the 1st whole sign house, and planets assigned by quadrant systems to the 9th house, were actually in the 10th whole sign house?
That might be an interesting investigation for someone to undertake: now, perhaps no significant % difference would be found, but I will say that IF there a significant % difference WERE found, the Gauquellin results, looked at in that light, would have accidentally supported the stength/accuracy of the ancient whole sign house format and the ancient doctrine of the 1st and 10th houses, as well. Certainly this would be an interesting research, utilizing the Gauquelin results in comparison with the whole sign house format...
 

Carris

Well-known member
A brief look at history will answer this question for you. Briefly, the origins of the signs go back at least to the Chaldeans, the Egyptians...etc.

Also, the type of research the Gauquelins did, did not find use for the signs. That does not mean universally they have no use.

Also, as most astrologers for three centuries now have been changing and modernizing astrological precepts and further removing them from their traditional roots, the use and meaning of the signs has been vastly distorted.

One cannot blame any one thing right off the bat without researching the reasons that things came to this point of mis-understanding. Otherwise, why do astrology if one feels it is simply bogus?

I actually started believing in astrology because of Gauquelin's work. I was reading up on the 12th house which is prominent in my chart and I came accross their research which really changed the way I used to think about saturn and the 12th. I believe that planets at the angles and aspects do affect us. But sun-sign astrology is so, so bogus - magazines, newspapers and publishers waste so much precious paper printing that garbage which unneccesarily causes alarm and upset to so many people.

Gauquelin is REAL astrology - based on evidence and rigorous testing - not sitting around playing with geometry and making wild conjectures - and then forcing people to fit into their birth chart because "I saw ten people with leo being arrogant so you too will be arrogant" - never mind the fact that it has to do with upbringing.

I can guess what those "astrologers" were thinking: "Oh boy! Look, if we assign 360 degrees to a circle then we can divide it by 3 and 4. And also exactly by 30. How cool is that? We'll just have to force fit the 7 planets into that somehow. Now lets see how do we link them up - how many elements do we have - earth, air, water, fire, ether, metal, wood.... No lets just assign four to the circle. That way we get a pretty looking geometric pattern which is easy to draw with our compass and rulers...."

They initially saw only 7-8 constellations in the sky - some were large and some were small - they force fit the concept of 30 degrees for 12 signs.
 
Last edited:

SniperBomber328

Well-known member
Just a couple of notes here. Traditional astrology doesn't use the semi-sextile (30*) aspect. So planets in the 12th are in aversion to the ASC. Also, there is not to my knowlege any way for anything to be "combust" the ASC. Unless someone here has read something about this? Combustion I think only happens with the Sun. The ASC is a point. It casts no rays.
I know a housr can't technically be combust. I was using it in the sense where the 12 and the 2nd were obscure because of the suns prominent light when rising. That and how obtuse the 2nd and 12th are to the AC, which i attributed to calling a semi sextile. Which neither defer from the original question. And too jupiterasc when you have the notion of why the 6th is better because it trines the MC....well in that logic, shouldn't the 5th be stronger than the 11th since the 5th trines the AC?
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
....I believe that planets at the angles and aspects do affect us. But sun-sign astrology is so, so bogus - magazines, newspapers and publishers waste so much precious paper printing that garbage which unneccesarily causes alarm and upset to so many people.

I am totally with you on this one.

Gauquelin is REAL astrology - based on evidence and rigorous testing - not sitting around playing with geometry and making wild conjectures - and then forcing people to fit into their birth chart because "I saw ten people with leo being arrogant so you too will be arrogant" - never mind the fact that it has to do with upbringing.

I can guess what those "astrologers" were thinking: "Oh boy! Look, if we assign 360 degrees to a circle then we can divide it by 3 and 4. And also exactly by 30. How cool is that? We'll just have to force fit the 7 planets into that somehow. Now lets see how do we link them up - how many elements do we have - earth, air, water, fire, ether, metal, wood.... No lets just assign four to the circle. That way we get a pretty looking geometric pattern which is easy to draw with our compass and rulers...."

I think, and you might already have done this, that studying the history of astrology would clear this up. It wasn't random and, it didn;t all come into being overnight. it was a process that was, unfortunately, interupted by Christiandom (they didn't call it the Dark Ages for nothing). A lot of info was lost and much of it, even now, mis-understood because we no longer have that contextual framework to work with.

They initially saw only 7-8 constellations in the sky - some were large and some were small - they force fit the concept of 30 degrees for 12 signs.

Not sure your reference for this one. 12 has been around since the Sumerians...but OK.

Technically, the Gaulquelins didn't "discover" anything. They onyl made it digestible to science which, they rejected anyway becuase science is biased and not very scientific, really.

The Gauquelins simply re-discovered. Kepler was doing similar work in his time. He ignored signs and looked at angular relationships, very similar to the Gauquelins. Some ancient authors also speak of similar placements and meanings...nothing is new under the Sun.
 

Carris

Well-known member
There are some interesting ancient teachings...

Around the fifth century B.C. there appeared for the first time maxims that related a man's birthdate to his possible destiny. At first these predictions were obviously made only for the kings. The forecasts were based on the motion of the planets. Here are a few examples translated by Sachs:

If a child is born when the moon has come forth, (then his life will be) bright, excellent, regular and long.
If a child is born when Jupiter has come forth, (then his life will be) regular, well; he will become rich, he will grow old, (his) days will be long.
"If a child is born when Venus has come forth, (then his life will be) exceptionally calm; wherever he may go, it will be favorable; his days will be long.

In general, the rising (i.e. the 12th HOUSE!) of heavenly bodies was considered favorable because then the positive characteristics of the gods were at their peak. By contrast, the setting of the same bodies was held to be a bad omen.

Astrology was born five thousand years ago in Chaldea. The Chaldeans developed the zodiacal system, which astronomers still use. The Babylonians, who succeeded the Sumerians, developed the art of prediction to a considerable extent. The Chaldean priest-astronomers divided the sky into three large strips, which they called "the heavenly paths" - in the middle was Anu's way, flanked by the paths of Enlil and Ea. Anu's way was the zodiac astronomers use today: a space sixteen degrees wide, which contains the constantly repeated path of the sun, the moon, and the planets.

The zodiacal belt with its constellations was known in Babylonia as early as 700 b.c. The first tablet of the series Mulapin lists "the constellations in the path of the moon" as follows:

the hair bush = Pleiades
the bull of Anu = Taurus
Anu's true shepherd = Orion
the old man = Perseus
sickle sword = Auriga
the great twins = Gemini
Prokyon or Cancer
lion or lioness = Leo
furrow = Spica
the scales = Libra
scorpion = Scorpio
archer = Sagittarius
goatfish = Capricornus
great star or giant = Aquarius
the tails = Pisces
the great swallow = Pegasi
the Goddess Anunitum = Pisces + middle part of dromedes
the hireling = Aries

The rules by which predictions were made were a mixture of observations and ANALOGIES. For instance, the shape of Scorpio reminded the Chaldean priest of the hated insect whose pincers seemed to be marked in the sky by two brilliant stars. The celestial Scorpio was held to be just as fearsome as the poisonous scorpion of the desert: "If Mars approaches Scorpio, the King must die of the bite of this insect."

The priests had some difficulty in following Mercury, since that planet, the closest to the sun, is often hidden by the latter's stronger light. The Chaldeans held it to be the dwelling of Nebo, a god who was untrustworthy, shy, shrewd, and voluble. So mercury is considered untrustworthy only because they couldn't see it so well?

"If Mars is visible in the month of Tammuz (June-July), the warrior's bed will stay cold\" (that is, there will be war). "If Mercury is seen in the North, there will be many corpses; the King of Akkad will invade a foreign country."
 
Last edited:

Anachiel

Well-known member
Good info!

Yeah, Libra used to be the claws of the Scorpion then, later became the Scales.

Understand though that there are the signs and then there are the constellations. The signs are, more or less, convenient placeholders. The constellations, which are used as fixed stars and mansions, are still in use as well.

So, Mercury got the reputation he does because he cannot be seen. Viable since even today, people do not trust with that cannot see. Hell, they cannot even trust what they can see anymore!
 

sandstone

Banned
hi carris,

a distinction needs to be made between planetary phase and house position.. planetary phase is often used to describe the relationship between a planet and the sun.. believe the descriptions you have offered here from long ago are about planetary phase, not house positions.. if i am correct on this then the term 'coming forth" is about coming out of the rays of the sun and with the exception of the moon, rising before the sun.. the moon which moves at a faster rate of speed then all the planets and sun and would be rising after the sun, although 'coming forth' out of the suns light.. not sure if you follow, but i believe that is what this info is about..
 

Carris

Well-known member
hi carris,

a distinction needs to be made between planetary phase and house position.. planetary phase is often used to describe the relationship between a planet and the sun.. believe the descriptions you have offered here from long ago are about planetary phase, not house positions.. if i am correct on this then the term 'coming forth" is about coming out of the rays of the sun and with the exception of the moon, rising before the sun.. the moon which moves at a faster rate of speed then all the planets and sun and would be rising after the sun, although 'coming forth' out of the suns light.. not sure if you follow, but i believe that is what this info is about..
No - they are quite clear about the ring and setting of planets - they definitely thought of the 12th house in a positive way. There is more clear information on it:

The tablets that recorded the forecasts based on the setting of the planets have been lost, but we know the evil influence attributed to the setting from the previsions based on the motions of two planets at a time, one of which is on the way up, the other on the way down: "If a child is born when Jupiter comes forth and Venus has set, it will go excellently with that man; his wife will leave and . . ." The rest of the fragment is missing, but its meaning is clear. We have seen that Jupiter represents the King. If it rises when Venus, its bride, disappears over the horizon: "his wife will leave," that is, she will have to die before him.

The decline of Jupiter was a bad omen for the King: "If a child is born when Venus comes forth and Jupiter has set, his wife will be stronger than he." As she rises, Venus dominates her groom, Jupiter, who is disappearing in the darkness. Some royal predictions based on the twelve signs of the zodiac have been found.

Its clear from this that they refer to rising and setting of the planets.
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
Good point! Hey, can you post that over on the 12th house thread that was going? Might be worth revisiting that 12th house topic.
 

sandstone

Banned
Last edited:

Moog

Well-known member
hi moog,

we can always make adjustments to make astro appear a few different ways.

Yes we can. And should, if we are to make comparative studies.

ali's mars is in 10th whole sign regardless of whether one switches into sidereal or not.. i was mostly giving an example of a sidereal mars in taurus that seemed just as effective.. i looked at a few whereby mars would be in cancer sidereal too. that was all i was thinking with that example which wouldn't hinge any on the time of day he was born.
True. I just think the signs do matter, unlike Gauquelin, Kepler et al. Taurus definitely isn't a bad sign for Mars.

Aries is just the domicile of Mars, that's all. Domicile planets + angularity = more oomph than angularity or domicile alone. Mahapurusha yogas

I've been looking briefly at charts of 'eminent' sports people, and some do have Mars in Cancer. Tends to be angular though.

I can't say for sure what is and isn't possible with a fallen planet in an angle, especially given good support in the rest of the chart. My experience isn't complete enough to know right now. I will enjoy finding out.

as for the gauguelin material and taking apart - i agree that it is good to try to breakdown all of the ideas and work of others in astrology regardless the era.. i think "tearing apart" might be what i see some folks wanting to do with gauguelins work, which is different then taking it apart. either way the work the gauguelins did warrants consideration.. it plays into our ideas about house systems as well.. dr farr correctly points out at the time they did their work, the whole-sign house system wasn't known.. one does wonder how much this would have altered the results.. unfortunately i am unaware of anyone doing research at present in a similar manner.. i think it would be of great benefit to astrology if someone was.
Well, I hope I'm not one seen to be tearing into it, because like I say, I do respect the work. I just don't feel like it's an entirely done and dusted investigation.
 

sandstone

Banned
hi moog,

indeed.. making comparative studies is educational. comparing anything is informative. the idea of sign/zodiac position verses angularity is especially interesting when the idea of angularity means a number of different things to different astrologers.. depending on what house system they use and on whether these same questions of angularity are captured in the gauguelin material or not is another outstanding question, unanswered. we could have a planet stretching from anywhere in the 1st house to the 12th house that some might consider angular while others might not, all dependent on the house system they use and how they interpret the house system too..
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
..........And too jupiterasc when you have the notion of why the 6th is better because it trines the MC....well in that logic, shouldn't the 5th be stronger than the 11th since the 5th trines the AC?
Not necessarily SniperBomber328 - a planet in the 5th trine the ASC is below the horizon while being carried by diurnal motion downwards towards the IC... and the IC is not as powerful as the MC.

A planet in the 11th is not only above the horizon but is also being carried by diurnal motion towards the 10th - and the 10th is more powerful than the IC
.

Hellenistically there are other considerations. For Horary and medieval astrology the house priority order is 1,10,7,4,11,5,9,3,2,8,6,12:smile:
 

sandstone

Banned
hi carris,

i have found a link with the partial info you cite in your post above to which i will include a wee bit more.. for anyone interested in reading further and learning about helical rising and setting of planets which is also discussed briefly, they can follow the link..
here is a part left off carris's message that some might like to read as well.. 100 word limit?
31) If a child is born when Mercury has come forth, (then his life? will be) brave, lordly ............
32) If a child is born when Mars has come forth, (then) ......, hot (?) temper (?).
33) If a child is born when Saturn has come forth, (then his life? will be) dark, obscure, sick, and constrained./263/ . . .

http://www.smoe.org/arcana/diss1.html
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes we can. And should, if we are to make comparative studies.

True. I just think the signs do matter, unlike Gauquelin, Kepler et al. Taurus definitely isn't a bad sign for Mars.

Aries is just the domicile of Mars, that's all. Domicile planets + angularity = more oomph than angularity or domicile alone. Mahapurusha yogas

I've been looking briefly at charts of 'eminent' sports people, and some do have Mars in Cancer. Tends to be angular though.

I can't say for sure what is and isn't possible with a fallen planet in an angle, especially given good support in the rest of the chart. My experience isn't complete enough to know right now. I will enjoy finding out.

Well, I hope I'm not one seen to be tearing into it, because like I say, I do respect the work. I just don't feel like it's an entirely done and dusted investigation.
Moog there's an interesting recent comment re this matter on the "Traditional Modern Contemporary" thread at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43020&page=11 :smile:

Sorry to have taken so long to respond. I've been distracted by family crises and developments.

It was more than good. It was a brilliant and heroic effort that has stood up remarkably well to the attempts of skeptics to discredit it. Three successive skeptics groups tried and failed. Each behaved irrationally and even hysterically in the face of findings they knew couldn't be valid because they knew astrological effects couldn't exist. They violated protocols agreed to by themselves and the Gauquelins, protocols to which the Gauquelins scrupulously adhered. In several instances they made additional demands necessitating years of additional work by the Gauquelins, which they undertook without complaint. When results didn't turn out as they expected they stalled, kept the Gauquelins in the dark, and eventually released statements that were less than fully honest. Philosopher Paul Kurtz, the driving force behind one of the groups, resorted to what would be called outright cheating if it was done deliberately. (I don't know if it was.) That same group shut out one of its most respected members, Dennis Rawlins, when he protested what was going on. He subsequently wrote an expose, sTarbaby, which was published in Fate magazine. Throughout the Gauquelins' behavior was exemplary, that of the skeptics groups an embarrassment to other skeptics dismayed by their treatment of the Gauquelins and their failure to abide by the principles of free inquiry. It's not just astrologers who hem and haw, back and fill when results don't appear to support their deepest beliefs.

The Mars effect controversy bears a striking resemblance to the earlier one involving Wegner's continental drift hypothesis, in which circumstantial evidence was discounted or ignored because how could massive continents plow through solid oceanic crust? Once convincing evidence was provided showing not only that continental drift had occurred but how it could occur resistance collapsed virtually overnight. The entire earth sciences community converted during 1965-66, and a couple of years later the theory of plate tectonics was born, leading to the more rigorous and effective level of research that has characterized the earth sciences ever since. There is a lesson here for astrological researchers. Until we can explain how astrological effects could possibly exist any evidence we offer that they exist is going to be discounted, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I've written about astrological causation, but making sense of astrology is possible only if we're willing to reconsider what sorts of effects actually exist and how astrology actually works, something astrologers are strikingly resistant to doing. As you note above it might require a paradigm shift, and such shifts are always vehemently resisted.

More recently Geoffrey Dean thinks he has a non-astrological explanation for the Gauquelin findings, which he calls social attribution. He thinks parents, especially during the 19th century and especially in the rural areas from which much of the Gauquelin data was drawn, have tended to avoid reporting births on dates or for times considered unlucky or evil, such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, midnight, etc., and have tended to prefer fortunate dates. Also, he claims that following almanacs in which rising, culminating and setting times are given was much more common then than now. I have read his arguments carefully since I last wrote here and there is something about them that bothers me, but I'll need to reread (and ponder) several more times before I can get clear on it. It's a serious challenge, not to be taken lightly. I'm not entirely convinced, but neither am I willing to dismiss his statistics and the interpretation he puts on them until I understand both more fully. In any case even if the Gauquelin findings evaporate it doesn't necessarily prove astrology doesn't exist. There are other lines of research I've been following in recent years which suggest the existence of astrological effects, albeit not the kinds of effects the overwhelming majority of astrologers believe in. Whatever is or might be true about astrology is obscured by an awful lot of nonsense.
 

Moog

Well-known member
Thanks JUPITERASC. I have been following that thread, bits of it anyway.

I can't really imagine how holding back births for inauspicious days would affect the data.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Thanks JUPITERASC. I have been following that thread, bits of it anyway.

I can't really imagine how holding back births for inauspicious days would affect the data.
Moog, if - in order to avoid "inauspicious days" - parents then reported births as occurring on days other than those days on which the births actually did occur then obviously, the house position of the planets as they were on the "auspicious days" could indeed differ from the house position of planets as they were for the actual birth on the inauspicious day.

Particularly if there is a difference of several days/weeks between the actual date of birth on the "inauspicious day"
and the claimed date of birth on the more auspicious day.

Thus invalidating the particular data collected from those parents at that time by the researchers :smile:
 

Moog

Well-known member
Ahh, I need to read things more closely (and get some sleep, probably). I had the idea that they were simply omitting to report the children at all :lol:
 
Top