astro.teacher
i mentioned neptune and pluto,which are both intimate parts of western astrology.i assume by you comments thatyou don't use neptune or pluto.
I'm not sure how Uranus, Neptune and Pluto got into this discussion. I have a question that bears directly on this topic, I think.astro.teacher said:I am a Traditional Astrologer, thus I follow the traditional system. I see no need for uranus neptune or pluto or any other additions to Astrology.http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap4-2.html
then transits would become nullified as well because when a transit to your natal occurs, its not aspecting the actual planet from when you were born (because that planet is no longer there), its aspecting the "point in space" the planet occupied at your time of birth.
I have no strong feeling one way or the other, but in a way ignoring the more precise measurements (which is all it seems to me to be) is a bit like sticking to an older ephemeris simply because it is older, not because it is more accurate.astro.teacher said:Gear,
I always go with mean nodes rather than true. Mean nodes are always traveling in a retrograde motion where as true nodes have the ability to be direct or retrograde because they are based of the Moons wobble. I guess its up to the individual in this case whichever they find more accurate.
I have no strong feeling one way or the other, but in a way ignoring the more precise measurements (which is all it seems to me to be) is a bit like sticking to an older ephemeris simply because it is older, not because it is more accurate.
The motion of the Moon's Mean Node is retrograde through the zodiac at the rate of roughly one degree every 19 days (compare the 19 year cycle of lunation). I should clarify here that the Moon's Mean Node is always retrograde, but the True Node oscillates according to the Moon's "wobble". This is caused by the gravitational effects of the Earth/Moon interaction, so the True Node sometimes has periods of direct motion. These periods of direct motion are considered unfortunate, as they go against the "natural motion" of the nodes. The Mean Node averages this "wobble" out, so giving a clearer picture.lillyjgc said:Astro teacher, at the moment the mean node is assessed as 3.49 pisces or thereabouts. The *true node,*at 5 deg something/..
Now I'm not notpicking, but apparently William Lilly made the assertion somewhere (and I can't find it, anyone?) that a horary chart is not fit to be read if one of the significators is at the same degree as the node.
When I drew up a horary chart the other day, the sun was at 3 deg and the node, according to my astro program at 3 deg, thus rendering the chart unfit to be read.But if the *true* node is used, the chart is fit to be read. So which one do I use? William Lilly probably used the *true* node, but does anyone know for sure?
Thanks. lillyjgc
I agree with most of what you say, but I rely on the equal house method rather than Placidus, although I started out with Placidus. No one has or can adequately explain how to read a chart of a person born far North or South of the Equator. The houses are a mess, and house lines often fall very close together in a bundle. People do live and are born in these locations. One Astrologer (self-identified as one) "Oh well, when you get such an absurd house structure in those cases just use the equal house. How ridiculous. If an equal house works there it will work everywhere. All anyone with minimal knowledge can go to www.astro.com and see what those charts look like. If that does not make one a believer in the equal house system house then nothing ever will. Some folks just cannot change upon discovering their error.You make a good point regarding the Ascendent being a point in space. I do not hold that the Ascendent takes aspects either. Both the Moon's Node and the Ascendent are points in space dependent upon the Ecliptic, points in space. Neither are significant except by conjunction.
I do not doubt that the Moon's Node is significant, although I cant find reason to consider that it has a past-life link. Logically, the Moon's tranverse across the Ecliptic would show what Luna will be or what Luna was, but only in relation to present life. So the Nodes would indicate potential and loss of potential, that which you can have in your life and that which will be denied. In one sense I suppose you could argue about fatalism, but then in one sense we are fated anyway.
I should add that shadows such as lillith have no influence, in my opinion, and neither do the asteroids. People who wish to be serious students of astrology should perhaps consider fewer rather than more "influences". It is much easier to predict the past, as so many do today, with a lot of jumble. Stick to using the basic planets, Sun and Moon, Ascendent, MC, Placidus, and all will be seen.
I do not denigrate others' experience with astrology, even when dealing with some of the more extreme positions. I have not seen any philosophical or concrete evidence that aspects apply to the nodes of the Moon, which are mathematecal constructs you will accept. By the way I believe A A Bailey in Esoteric Astrology, which is a real bear to read for me anyway, indicated that the Moon hides the esoteric Uranus. Frankly I find esoteric astrology to be bizarre ... astrology as a subject is esoteric so the adjective seems redundant.
On the asteroids, I wonder what is the philosophical basis for their influence? Is it by size, and if so at what size do the million or so that have been catalogued not have effect? As it is there are about 3000 asteroids for every degree of the zodiac. Do they all have influence and if not why not? Perhaps you will see the problem I have with this.
On "casting no rays" of the Fixed Stars Astro Teacher I believe this is was always the position of the ancients. Only recently have some of those who use them started talking about aspects to the Stars. I am inclined to think that declination matters rather more than magnitude when using thew Fixed Stars.