sonja,

I see your currently based in the USA, the idea of the USA having an ascendent other than sag seems to resonate more with americans from what i can see?

do you know of an article where these catalogue of events are described in relation to the gemini or any other chart other than a sag rising.

ps -whats WWW?
________
Synthetic Weed

Hi Robin:

I see your currently based in the USA, the idea of the USA having an ascendant other than sag seems to resonate more with Americans from what i can see?

Just a simple observation and it is probably worth what you paid for it: I've noticed that in general non Americans tend to see Americans as Gemini like whereas Americans seem to see themselves as Sagittarius-like. There are exceptions of course.

evilla's thinking relates to the 'seed metaphor', namely why just the one seed. He is persuaded by what he sees as epiphanies. so for usa the civil war, pearl harbour, jfk, 9/11......

Your choice of the word "epiphany" is interesting and although it might not be what I would choose, it does make one think.

however, like cornelius but from a different rationale, you would have the sibley chart in the middle of a round table and all these other charts surrounding it. So the sibley remains the focus but to describe the history of the usa in more depth you would need these other(s).
so i suppose your 'nesting' fits here?
what interests me more is the practicalities and results of this approach

Not exactly, but I did not explain myself very well. After I wrote this I began a little work to try to explain it better and I'm not really done with it. I'll give you a teaser.

First off, I've begun to work with the chart of the grand conjunction that occurred prior to American Independence. This is not to say that I think the July 4 charts have no value, it's just that I like working with this one. It has the advantage of eliminating the problem of what time the Declaration was signed and which chart to use.

Data

USA Grand Conjunction
March 18, 1762
4:41 PM GMT
Washington, DC

8 Cancer 50 rises
NOTE GMT not LMT

Purists will note that Washington, DC did not exist in 1762, but switching the chart to Philadelphia or New York City produces few differences.

This is the base chart against which other charts are compared. It is, in once sense, an event chart and event charts are rarely used alone. They have to be compared to something or else they are just transits.

We would then compare subsequent events, eclipses, and grand conjunction charts to this one. Grand conjunctions occur roughly every twenty years. Some are going to be more significant than others, like some solar returns are more significant than others. How we tell whether or not a subsequent chart is significant is by connections to the base chart. I look for pretty much what Morin tells students to look for in solar returns. I look at the angles and see if they repeat or are reversed. I look for planets conjunct the 1762 angles. I look at the nodes for repetition and reversal. I also look carefully at antiscia. If there are several connections that appear significant we would then look at eclipses, or events.

The basic technique can be found in an article in issue 21 of the Astrologer's Apprentice titled "Let's Get Engaged." You can download this for a few dollars from John Frawley's website.

Coffee mentioned the JFK assassination and so did you. I've recently (again) become interested in the assassination and its aftereffects both historically and astrologically. Frawley touched on the American Civil War and WWII. I am trying to apply the method to the JFK assassination using the 1762 chart as a base. If one prefers, one could use a July 4, 1776 chart as a base and work from there.

Since events starting from grand conjunction unfold slowly we would not use the 2001 conjunction to explain 9/11. We would go back to the 1980 conjunction.

There was a conjunction that occurred shortly after JFK was inaugurated, but I chose to use the 1940 conjunction. For the longest time the defining moment or events of my generation (baby boomer/Pluto in Leo for you moderns) has been considered the Viet Nam war. I'm beginning to believe that actually it was the assassination of Kennedy - not just that a leader was murdered, but the effect that had on the nation - effects that I believe are still being felt today. By using the 1940 conjunction with the 1762 conjunction and Kennedy's data, we see his election and murder as the end of one era (WWII) and the beginning of a new era. That new era would unfold over time and be represented in the 1961 conjunction.

If there is anything to this idea at all, there should be connections with Kennedy's chart and the 1762 chart, the 1940 chart, perhaps an eclipse, and transits on Nov 22, 1963 might be triggers. So far I've found some connections and my idea was to post them here and perhaps we could discuss them. So far they are just connections without any interpretations. They may just be coincidences, but if they repeat in several charts then we might be on to something.

Once I organize the work a little better I'll post it.

Tom

robin wrote:coffee
your better of reading these ideas yourself as they are quite sophisticated.

Yeah, sophisticated is one word to use. Some of the debate on this forum goes over my head, but always interesting.

SGFoxe...Sibley natal Moon is not VOC, applies to ssx Pluto is you consider the outers.

tom,
interesting that you find the opposite to be the case. If you see a group of american toursits in london they just seem to be screaming 'we are sagitarrian at you'. It's the confidence and larger than life air about them.
I'm generalising i'm sure there's one or two superficial geminian types around.

as to the 1762 chart. let's see what it reveals. your post brings in the issue of what events are significant, ideally you could ask a group of eminent american historians to agree on the 10 pivotal dates/events.

if you haven't you should visit revilla's site, he strikes me as one of the brightest stars out there. Although some of his ideas may seem 'far out' he is able to mount a compelling defence of their rationale(s). Unfortunately i'm unable to assess their merits as i lack the astrological and cognitive pre-requisites.
________
Mflb

Hi Tom,

Thats very interesting. Its certainly saves a lot of interminable arguments over the right USA chart. I had heard John Frawley ran a workshop on this theme last year so the idea is clearly something he has more than a passing interest in.

This may be an obtuse question but why isn't the initial chart based on Philadelphia?

I appreciate Washington DC has been the national capital since 1800. However, Philadelphia was the original capital of the USA wasn't it? Certainly , it was the centre of key events closest to the conjunction of 1762. The Declaration of Independence was signed there in 1776. In addition the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was agreed there producing the Articles Of Confederation. Many historians regard this as the actual birth of the USA. Thus the two key legal/political events leading to the creation of the USA were therefore centred on Philadelphia not Washington DC.

This may be an obtuse question but why isn't the initial chart based on Philadelphia?

Not obtuse at all. You are correct, Washington DC did not even exist in 1762 (can't name a capital after a man who isn't even famous yet) or for that matter 1776. The location of the capital was a hot topic back then and a location on the north/south border taken from land in Maryland and Virginia was a political compromise.

Frawley used DC in his original article in the Astrologer's Apprentice, and perhaps he did out of habit or without investigating US History. Robert Zoller uses New York City for contemporary US mundane work as NYC is the de facto financial and commerce capital in the US.

But rather than argue over it, we need only look at a map. Philadelphia is only about 140 miles north of Washington DC, about 2 and a half hours by car. The resulting charts are hardly different, about two degrees on the ASC. This would be huge for primary directions, though. Moving the chart to Philly results in the Moon being even closer to the DSC and the Sun and Venus are even more tightly conjunct the MC increasing the influence of all.

Also where would we cast post 1800 charts? Philadelphia? I'll continue to use DC unless someone can give me a compelling reason to switch.

Tom

I am certainly not wedded to any theory here or feeling passionate enough to make an argument out of this. Just asking a few questions before I accept this approach.

I suppose using Philadelphia on an ongoing basis is only relevant if we see the first couple of conjunctions ie 1762 and 1782 as similar to inception charts establishing the location focus of all further conjunctions for the USA. I am not positive thats the right appoach though. Otherwise there is only a case for Philadelphia up to 1800. Clearly, by the 1802 conjunction Washington is the federal capital without a doubt.

Do we have any Phili astrologers willing to step forward and defend their civic honour.......?

As a Britainic subject I feel you ex-colonials insisted on leaving the Empire at your own risk so its now your responsibility to sort out the astrological mess you have got yourselves into.

If I may be allowed a slight diversion here:

I don?t know if this has come up before. Change the 1762 Conjunction location to New Haven CT, the birth place of G. W. Bush ?

March 18, 1762
4:41 PM GMT
New Haven, CT

George W. Bush
July 6, 1946
7:26 am EDT +4:00
New Haven, CT

Conjunction Chart?s ASC: 13 CANCER 55.
Bush?s Sun (his Asc. ruler): 13 CANCER 46

The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is in Cardinal ARIES, in the angular 10th house.
Bush MC sign: ARIES

Conjunction chart has Moon-Sun in Cardinal square.
Bush chart has Moon-Sun in Cardinal square, quite closely within orb of Conjunction chart square.

In the Conjunction chart the Moon?s next aspect is a square to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction.
In the Bush chart the Moon?s next aspect is the conjunction with Jupiter. Jupiter is applying square Saturn in the Bush chart.

In the Conjunction chart the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is in the angular 10th house.
In the Bush chart Saturn squares the MC-IC axis and Jupiter is 6 degrees and 6 minutes from the IC ? qualifying as conjunct the angle by some ancient and current traditionalist astrologers who use a 7 degree orb for the angles.



Bush shares (encourages and provokes?) the national Cardinal propensity to charge off and do something, to take action. But the follow-through for both can be disastrous.

qualifying as conjunct the angle by some ancient and current traditionalist astrologers who use a 7 degree orb for the angles.

Hi Kirk,

I would be very interested to know which astrologers you have in mind specifically here as I haven't come across this before.

Thanks

Mark

I?ll have to rummage around for the ancient astrologers. I don?t remember, but it was discussed here perhaps 2 or 3 years ago. For some reason I want to say Bonatti did, but aren?t you the one who?s reading the Dyke?s translation? Is it there anywhere? Maybe I?m confused with Ibn Ezra. I'm grabbing at straws here. I?ll see what I can find. Lee Lehman has used 7 in the past. I don?t know if she still does.

Similarly, the house degree offsets in the Solar Fire Dignity/Almuten editor have a default setting of 7 degrees for the angles, 5 for succedent and 3 for cadent houses. Lehman seems to have been consulted for some traditional computations in Solar Fire, so maybe they got this from her.

Hi Mark

I am certainly not wedded to any theory here or feeling passionate enough to make an argument out of this

When I used the word "argue" I didn't mean you and me. It was intended to be more general like, "Rather than having a bunch of astrolgers argue over the merits of one chart or another, once we see that the two cities are geographically close, we realize that the resulting charts aren't that much different." Bad phrasing on my part.

As a Britainic subject I feel you ex-colonials insisted on leaving the Empire at your own risk so its now your responsibility to sort out the astrological mess you have got yourselves into.

Hardly the first time we've gotten ourselves into a mess and certainly not the last.

Kirk wrote:

Bush shares (encourages and provokes?) the national Cardinal propensity to charge off and do something, to take action. But the follow-through for both can be disastrous.

Interesting concept. It captures Bush's instinct to take action which is a personal characteristic of his. I'm not sure, given the recent publication of captured enemy documents and the NY Times admission that things are going well in Iraq that we can call this "disasterous." But there certainly were some less than hoped for conditions in the recent past.

Tom