Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

conspiracy theorist said:
Is Pluto's pitchfork and it's similarity to a tuning fork image significant to your system, are is just an interesting "coincidence"?

It's significant. That was the Foreground, Tropical Age of Sagittarius, and with Jupiter as the Foreground Age-ruler, and Pluto as the Background Age-ruler (since the tuning-fork here is designed to cover a Sign's length), Mutable-fire versus Fixed-water (concurrent Background Age of Scorpio) required a go-between, Pisces, Mutable-water, which brings in Neptune as the middle brother. The Age Trident is formed with the (constructed) tuning-fork centered on the center-line of Earth's elliptical orbit, at the Earth's Point of Perihelion. I've identified the three points as relating to Individuals (1st-point in the direction of motion), the center-point to Society, and the 3rd-point to Tradition. Pluto's pitchfork would therefore have connected Sagittarius directly to Scorpio, without the intercession of Pisces and Neptune as a Social influence--with death a purely personal matter between the Individual and Tradition.

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

david starling said:
Petosiris, I take the opinions of every serious, experienced Astrologer seriously, whether I end up agreeing with every opinion or not. You came down very hard on using more than one House system as valid, whereas I consider them as descriptive of different "Life Paths" one might choose along the way. Just wondering why you're so adamant about there being only one valid House system, and one valid coordinate-system regarding the Signs. Also, what you consider them to be--Sidereal or Tropical, and which is your confirmed House method? (If you don't mind saying).

I am fine with modern astrologers doing their thing with whatever house or zodiac.
I am not fine with an astrologer who has the same methods as I do, but uses different workframes - tropical and quadrants. It is obvious that this will lead to contradictory results and nothing to do with approaches to life and astrology. Personally I use sidereal and whole signs and that means a tropicalist will delineate the chart very differently, and there will be differences between the house (and ayanamsa) users too. This is not currently that big of a problem as there are hardly two astrologers who use the same methods, but if there was a school of astrology, they would need to figure things out. There is no middle way between sidereal and tropical, one is better (it could be slightly, or it could be greatly) than the other.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

conspiracy theorist said:
Hmm, how about Ted Bundy's chart?
https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Bundy,_Ted

Do you see an afflicted Moon in his case and/or a compounding of testimonies to explain his serial killing?

Well, let me see....All right, Whole-sign looks more clear. A loaded H5, with Sun in Sagittarius "Catalytic", Mars "Motivational" and the Moon, which is "in-Service" to Sagittarius, is essentially supercharged in terms of providing personal, emotional-energy. That adds up to very powerful energy. Normally Ouranos (the correct Greek for :uranus:

) would be the Moon's "Benefactor", but it's in direct Opposition--lack of emotional guidance. Meanwhile, the deadly enmity between Saturn and Pluto is being played out in H1, and the Moon and Mars are in close Trine to that situation. [Pausing to pull up the Chart again]....Just checking to see why Jupiter couldn't help--it's in Scorpio, Pluto's Sign, directly Squaring Pluto. Pluto in Leo is a Facilitator, while (extremely contrary to Traditional) Saturn in Leo is Enhanced. So, Death made easy, in H5, for the Chart-native's entertainment, with Mars as Motivator. I would say this Moon has extremely scary energy, on tap, without Guidance. While lacking empathy, it does possess a great deal of intuitive ability. Terrible combination! Hmm, Sun's at the bottom again....

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
I am fine with modern astrologers doing their thing with whatever house or zodiac.
I am not fine with an astrologer who has the same methods as I do, but uses different workframes - tropical and quadrants. It is obvious that this will lead to contradictory results and nothing to do with approaches to life and astrology. Personally I use sidereal and whole signs and that means a tropicalist will delineate the chart very differently, and there will be differences between the house (and ayanamsa) users too. This is not currently that big of a problem as there are hardly two astrologers who use the same methods, but if there was a school of astrology, they would need to figure things out. There is no middle way between sidereal and tropical, one is better (it could be slightly, or it could be greatly) than the other.

Thanks. I've accepted Zoller's distinction of Tropical as being about our Mundane lives, and Sidereal about our Spiritual journey--or situation, if you prefer.

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

david starling said:
Thanks. I've accepted Zoller's distinction of Tropical as being about our Mundane lives, and Sidereal about our Spiritual journey--or situation, if you prefer.

I would have to disagree with that notion. It is possible theoretically, to use two astrologies for two different things, but I have never seen one who does that. Pretty sure most Tropicalists think they cover both, and same for Siderealists.

Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.

However, in my opinion, there is a universe that allows both modern and traditional astrology, as one is focused on prediction, the other more on personality. Even if they use different zodiacs it is possible, provided they do not contradict each other in their delineation. If this is not possible and there will always be some contradiction, there must be one astrology to rule them all I suppose.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
I would have to disagree with that notion. It is possible theoretically, to use two astrologies for two different things, but I have never seen one who does that. Pretty sure most Tropicalists think they cover both, and same for Siderealists.

Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.

However, in my opinion, there is a universe that allows both modern and traditional astrology, as one is focused on prediction, the other more on personality. Even if they use different zodiacs it is possible.

Nearly all Tropicalists are using the Tropical coordinates for the working Chart, and some variation of Sidereal for the Ages. And these "Ages" are accorded tremendous influence, altering the course of civilization itself. May I assume you're not using an Age Indicator in your Sidereal system?

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

The ''Ages'' (if you accept that) would only have an effect on very mundane delineations, you realise that? Most practice is on nativities, I've given you a very practical example where it shows that two zodiacs are incompatible.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
The ''Ages'' (if you accept that) would only have an effect on very mundane delineations, you realise that? Most practice is on nativities, I've given you a very practical example where it shows that two zodiacs are incompatible.

I disagree concerning the Ages. That's because what's known as an "Age" is really just a result of Earth's affect on the nativity. What makes it so powerful is, 1) we live on the Earth; and 2) it changes position in each native's Chart so slowly, it influences each successive generation in the same Sign, for millennia. Why pretend the Earth has no Astrological effect on a Chart? That doesn't make sense to me.
As for compatibility, the Aspects remain nearly the same, from Sidereal to Tropical (with an exception for out-of-Sign Aspects and Conjunctions). I see it as two different angles of view. Suppose, as an analogy, there are two windows looking out into the same yard, but they're at opposite ends of a hallway. Neither gets the entire view of the yard, only what can be seen from its own vantage point. You can't look out of both windows at once, but you can gain information about the yard from each. And, there would naturally be both similarities and differences.

Solar Flare · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
I am fine with modern astrologers doing their thing with whatever house or zodiac.
I am not fine with an astrologer who has the same methods as I do, but uses different workframes - tropical and quadrants. It is obvious that this will lead to contradictory results and nothing to do with approaches to life and astrology. Personally I use sidereal and whole signs and that means a tropicalist will delineate the chart very differently, and there will be differences between the house (and ayanamsa) users too. This is not currently that big of a problem as there are hardly two astrologers who use the same methods, but if there was a school of astrology, they would need to figure things out. There is no middle way between sidereal and tropical, one is better (it could be slightly, or it could be greatly) than the other.

petosiris, what methods do you use? And why do you choose sidereal over tropical? I don't want a debate on which zodiac is better and which is worse, just genuinely curious, especially since you seem to be quite knowledgeable in astrology. Is it an attempt to follow the ancient authors more closely or have you had enough experience to claim confidently that sidereal works better? Also what ayanamsa do you use?

JUPITERASC · Jan 30, 2018

Solar Flare said:
petosiris, what methods do you use?
And why do you choose sidereal over tropical?

I don't want a debate on which zodiac is better and which is worse, just
genuinely curious, especially since you seem to be quite knowledgeable in astrology.
Is it an attempt to follow the ancient authors more closely
or have you had enough experience
to claim confidently that sidereal works better?
Also what ayanamsa do you use?

the few western sidereal astrologer members of our forum
have no board on which to post
and mostly
unsurprisingly no longer post
there is no area for sidereal delineation
except the General Astrology Board aka Read My Chart et al

in fact
our traditional Hellenistic western sidereal member Konrad closed his Account

but is a member of Skyscript
if anyone is interested to read his delineation there
ex-member Konrad also has a webpage at https://esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com/
on which one may comment

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
I would have to disagree with that notion. It is possible theoretically, to use two astrologies for two different things, but I have never seen one who does that. Pretty sure most Tropicalists think they cover both, and same for Siderealists.

Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.

However, in my opinion, there is a universe that allows both modern and traditional astrology, as one is focused on prediction, the other more on personality. Even if they use different zodiacs it is possible, provided they do not contradict each other in their delineation. If this is not possible and there will always be some contradiction, there must be one astrology to rule them all I suppose.

Should be a piece of cake for Traditional methods to predict a large increase in wealth due to a windfall, such as a winning lottery ticket. THAT would impress Materialistic Science! Plenty of examples to test Tropical versus Sidereal.

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

Solar Flare said:
petosiris, what methods do you use? And why do you choose sidereal over tropical? I don't want a debate on which zodiac is better and which is worse, just genuinely curious, especially since you seem to be quite knowledgeable in astrology. Is it an attempt to follow the ancient authors more closely or have you had enough experience to claim confidently that sidereal works better? Also what ayanamsa do you use?

I am willing to share some of my methods and theorems privately, provided the person is interested in studying and keeps them secret.

Both to your last questions and Aldebaran 15°. Afaik Konrad also used that zodiac, very astute.

Showing you one chart in sidereal and explaining everything that tropical misses or doing vice versa using whatever method is in my opinion futile. Come and see.

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

david starling said:
I disagree concerning the Ages. That's because what's known as an "Age" is really just a result of Earth's affect on the nativity. What makes it so powerful is, 1) we live on the Earth; and 2) it changes position in each native's Chart so slowly, it influences each successive generation in the same Sign, for millennia. Why pretend the Earth has no Astrological effect on a Chart? That doesn't make sense to me.
As for compatibility, the Aspects remain nearly the same, from Sidereal to Tropical (with an exception for out-of-Sign Aspects and Conjunctions). I see it as two different angles of view. Suppose, as an analogy, there are two windows looking out into the same yard, but they're at opposite ends of a hallway. Neither gets the entire view of the yard, only what can be seen from its own vantage point. You can't look out of both windows at once, but you can gain information about the yard from each. And, there would naturally be both similarities and differences.

I've read the volumes of the Secret Doctrine, the source of the ''Ages''. While I respect Madame Blavatsky, she put too many blinds into the concept and at other times was too vague.
Now the Earth obviously has no astrological effect, because all astrological effect happens on Earth. If there were men on Mars, of course the Earth would have an astrological divinatory effect for them.

You are mixing approaches and workframes. Imagine you have one approach to astrology - calculating the length of life, as I said:
Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.
Tell me why you need two zodiacs and why they do not contradict each other.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

Having lived around Materialistic-scientists for several years, and being pitied for my interest in Astrology, I have a pretty good sense of the prevailing attitude: The Sign-boundaries, whether Tropical or Sidereal, are a real deal-breaker for them. As materialists, they require an actual physical presence to justify Astrological influence. Their first line of attack is always against Tropical, using Precession as their weapon--straight to the Constellations no longer occupying the Tropical-signs bearing their names. Next, they go after equal-length Sidereal-Sign's, gleefully pointing out that the the Constellations are of unequal length. Interesting that both Zoller and Hand have decided to use unequal-length Constellational boundaries when it comes to predicting the beginning of a Sidereal Aquarian Age, which moves it even farther into the future than the 15 degree Aldebaran setting for the equal-length Sidereal-signs.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
I've read the volumes of the Secret Doctrine, the source of the ''Ages''. While I respect Madame Blavatsky, she put too many blinds into the concept and at other times was too vague.
Now the Earth obviously has no astrological effect, because all astrological effect happens on Earth. If there were men on Mars, of course the Earth would have an astrological divinatory effect for them.

You are mixing approaches and workframes. Imagine you have one approach to astrology - calculating the length of life, as I said:
Robert Zoller says tropical astrology can reveal the length of life. Obviously the same chart in sidereal zodiac will always show a different year, whatever technique you use. Therefore what he says is a contradiction or a sop.
Tell me why you need two zodiacs and why they do not contradict each other.

Planets Act. The Earth is a Planet. Therefore it Acts upon us.

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

Constellations and fixed stars are of the primary reasons I use a sidereal zodiac - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113959 , you can see I note the influence of Leo at the end of Cancer, of Pisces at the beginning of Aries and so forth, showing that the ancients had a sidereal framework in mind when considering the signs and bounds, including early tropicalists (the difference was minimal). Those scientists had a point.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

Do you believe the presence of actual celestial bodies is necessary to explain Astrological effects? If so, what is it about their physical makeup that produces that result?

petosiris · Jan 30, 2018

david starling said:
Do you believe the presence of actual celestial bodies is necessary to explain Astrological effects? If so, what is it about their physical makeup that produces that result?

No, it is not necessary. Though it is easier and better to speak of influences, indications, omens and gods than unknown mechanism/occult forces/synchronicity. Or did I misunderstood your question?

If you meant whether you need stars for the zoidia, yes I believe so. The physical makeup produces pareidolia, biases and w/e chemical effect in a brain that causes ecstasy, divination, paraNormal phenomena etc. Astronomy also has an effect in all that - the orbits (of planets), heliacal and acronical risings etc.

There are many factors and influences, which is why I believe we do not have a good explanation for astrology... yet.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

I pay close attention to the interplay of gods and goddesses in the Ancient Greco-Roman pantheon. That's the main reason I believe the Earth does have an Astrological impact on our Charts: Gaia personified the Earth itself, and played a major role in determining the hierarchy of Rulership over people's lives. Although the Earth can't "wander" through the Zodiac, since she (or, "he", in the Ancient Egyptian cosmology) is centered in our Astrological coordinate-system(s), there are Terrestrial features relative to the Sun that can be be measured and tracked in the Chart. I don't view the Ages as coming from "out there", but from "down here", where we actually live.

david starling · Jan 30, 2018

petosiris said:
No, it is not necessary. Though it is easier and better to speak of influences, indications, omens and gods than unknown mechanism/occult forces/synchronicity. Or did I misunderstood your question?

If you meant whether you need stars for the zoidia, yes I believe so. The physical makeup produces pareidolia, biases and w/e chemical effect in a brain that causes ecstasy, divination, paraNormal phenomena etc. Astronomy also has an effect in all that - the orbits (of planets), heliacal and acronical risings etc.

There are many factors and influences, which is why I believe we do not have a good explanation for astrology... yet.

I totally agree with your last statement.

Does Materialistic Modern Science Have Limitations?

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member