I don't think Deb actually stated that the relationship to the ASC was the origin of the aspects. Instead she suggests it relates to the traditional sign rulerships and their position to the Sun. This seems the main counter-theory to the idea the aspects relate back to pythagorean number theory and musical scales. However, Ptolemy seems to use both explanations so perhaps the two ideas are not in contradiction with each other.

Actually Mark I?m not sure that?s what I was suggesting either. I think aspectual relationships were an important part of the rulership scheme but I wouldn?t suggest that they originated out of it; it was more the other way around. (Sorry if I?m misrepresenting what you?re saying BTW, I?m not sure I even understand the question anymore, let alone the answer).

A better article for how I believe aspects are tied to the principles of shape and form is given at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

I wouldn?t describe this as a counter-theory to the idea that aspects relate back to pythagorean number theory and musical scales. I think that it?s a very important part of the whole issue too, and from what I understand it was used to support the numerological and geometrical principles of aspects rather than contradict them. But I?m simply not qualified to explain that element of the philosophy, being that I don?t have a good understanding of it myself! It used to seem to me that the musical associations weren?t such a big issue anyway, because most astrological texts fail to dwell upon them or even mention them. But as I said earlier, I?m fairly convinced that to have a good understanding of Kepler?s views, we would have to start off with a good understanding of Ptolemy?s, because Kepler bases a lot of his theory on either contradicting or expanding Ptolemy?s teachings. And we can't overstate the influence of Ptolemy.

I also think that we probably have a very incomplete appreciation of what Ptolemy really had to say about astrological philosophy because so many of his works have been lost or are not easily available to us. Like Kepler, Ptolemy was very interested in both the structure of music and the mechanics of optical phenomena. (He wrote a 3 volume book on music called Harmonica, and a 5 volume book on optical phenomena called Optica, neither of which I?ve seen). Both music and the theory of optics are important concepts in Kepler?s philosophy on aspects ? optics were relevant because much of his theory rested upon the impressions of light and he believed that the meaning of aspects are revealed to us by the way that their images are received by the eye and impressed upon the mind. The translators of his Harmony of the World point out the little known fact that Kepler was the first person to give a correct analysis of the eye as an optical instrument, explaining the inversion of the image on the retina, etc.

I personally think that Kepler was one of the greatest astrological theorists of all time, and his Harmony of the World, one of the most important texts on astrological philosophy of all time. But it's not an easy read. If I ever come close to understanding half of it I?ll be very pleased with myself. Hmm, I can?t find the reference for it now but I?m sure I remember one of his comments where he says he wrote the work, knowing it might take 1000 years before someone would be capable of understanding it properly and developing it further. So my advice would be that it?s probably hugely ambitious to try to understand all these concepts in preparation for your upcoming talk, but it?s a great idea to take on Kepler as a long term project ? it will give you a lifetime of philosophical challenge.

Deb

PS ? Yes I?m always grateful for promotion of the book, and remember, no publicity is bad publicity. Of course it?s not perfect or anything ? I mean, I don?t imagine it will ever take someone 1000 years to understand my meagre offering

Dee wrote:

Deb stated her aspect explanation in relation to 'Classical Astrology', do we know if classical astrology was the origin of all astrology?

I'm not suggesting that Dee. I don't believe that myself. And on the subject of aspects the Mesopotamians are known to have developed and utilised the concept of triplicities before the rise of classical astrology. But I suppose that's another thread.

Just an odd note, the oldest currently KNOWN mathematical system was a 60 base system from the Mesopotomian Region, city of babylon, and was created, it seems to deal with astrological movement.

it would lead me to wonder if classical astrology is not indeed the mother of all philosophy and science.

I sometimes wonder if we dont get to close to the subject to see it clearly, after all how can you look at the sky and planets and not see the geometrical relationship?? it seems an odd arguement?

Oh well breaks over back to the matresses... Granny

Hello Dee,

Ok fair comment. I was perhaps getting a tad carried away in describing Temples as 'definitive'. Clearly all such works are provisional. However, it does seem to be the most substantial piece of published material on the origins of the houses that at least I am aware of. Moreover, better
informed people than I seem to concur. I note the Astrology Center of America are also listing this as the best available book on the houses.
Thats not to say your manuscript will not totally transform our current understanding of the houses. I wish you well in that endeavour. Indeed I would be very interested to hear your views.

As for my comments I can only state I was presenting things as I understood them (or misunderstood them!)

My position was oversimplistic and it appears fundamentally incorrect!. Still I don't post on skyscript just to show what I know (or don't know!) I also do it as a learning experience. This thread has certainly given me that!

Incidentally have you seen Maurice McCann's book The Sun & the Aspects? He does suggest the origin of the aspects may be linked to the Sun although more on its observational relationship to the planets. Not the same as sign rulerships I admit.

Hello Deb,

Thanks for clarifying your position. I think I am just beginning to appreciate what an enormous topic this is!

Perhaps my pressing publc speaking deadline has made me rather impatient to find black and white answers where they don't necessarily exist. I guess I am going to have to learn to accept a degree of ambiguity and humility.

Incidentally, going back to my original post I think I have clarified where my confusion arose about Kepler and heliocentric astrology. I have been reading Fred Gettings Dictionary of Astrology. He has a section entitled 'Keplerian Harmonics' where he states Kepler directly linked the heliocentric distances between the planets with musical scales. This is a different point from what David Plant and Nick Kollerstrom were stating when they mentioned Kepler's use of musical scale to explain his new aspects in geocentric astrology.

I haven?t read Maurice McCann?s book on the Sun and the aspects but I can imagine that it raises some good points. Now I understand why you brought up the suggestion that the origin of aspects could be linked to their relationship with the Sun and why there is some association between that and the sign rulership scheme. I don?t know what McCann says but I also feel that planetary cycles from and to the Sun are crucially important to traditional astrological theory, and generally underestimated in modern astrology. I think there?s room for a lot more research and commentary to be done on that.

It looks like my memory made quite an exaggeration of the comment Kepler wrote about the book possibly having to wait a long time for a suitable reader. It was probably this comment I was thinking of, his Introduction to Book V.

See, I cast the die and write the book. Whether it is to be read by the people of the present or of the future makes no difference: let it wait its reader for a hundred years, if God himself has stood ready for six thousand years for one to study him.

This is just after where he talks about being stimulated by a manuscript of the Harmony of Ptolemy, having discovered that the ?great man? basically set out the same conclusions as he did, and that they both independently came to the same views, even though there was an interval of fifteen centuries between them. I really like the fact that Kepler was more concerned about his book being a worthy contribution than a popular one. He talks about himself and Ptolemy as two men who gave themselves "wholly to the study of nature".