Clelia Romano wrote:I understood that you?re trying to validate Fagan/Bradley through the study of Egyptian Terms, isn?t it?
May be I really miss the point but bounds aren?t a so bigger dignity to validate a system instead of another one, in my opinion.
Why you haven?t use rulership, for example?

Hi Clelia!

Well, strictly speaking my intention was not to try to validate Fagan/Bradley through the study of Egyptian bounds. All the ayanamsas and the tropical zodiac started from an equal position. I used sidereal Lahiri myself when I started the Egyptian bounds study, and it was a bit surprise that Fagan/Bradley did so strong.

Then why did I use such a minor dignity as bounds? Actually bounds were not considered a minor dignity in Hellenistic astrology, but according to some sources they had as much importance as the signs. Why then so few astrologers use them today? Honestly speaking, even traditionalists are not quite sure what to do with them.

My personal opinion is that it?s because the precession has taken meaning away from the tropical bounds. I?ve recently sorted the ?planet on the Ascendant? pictures in another gallery according to the sidereal rising sign, bound and degree. There you can see how the bounds show up in the appearance http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/ascendant_gallery.htm . I don?t know about you, but at least I see how the people with the same sign and bound rising look alike, and their appearances reflect the nature of the planet ruling the ascending bound.

Last year I made quite a lot of qualitative research on the bounds and found a lot of meaning in them. I?ll take one example, but here Lahiri works actually better than Fagan/Bradley (there?s a difference of 57?) so I admit this is a bit confusing .

What do William Blatty, Alice Cooper, Harry Lillis Crosby Jr., Jennifer Jason Leigh and David Lynch have in common? Answer: all have written, played or performed roles in horror or otherwise disturbing scenes. William Blatty is the author of ?The Exorcist?; Alice Cooper is a well-known horror rocker, Harry Lillis Crosby Jr. played in ?Friday the 13th?; Jennifer Jason Leigh ?has played a wide variety of disturbing and challenging roles? (ADB); and David Lynch has directed some of the weirdest films of the late 20th century. All have five or six of their seven traditional planets added with the Nodes (meaning five or six planets or points out of nine) in the sidereal bounds of Saturn, the planet of dark regions. I got quite a lot of similar results when collecting charts with emphasis in bounds ruled by a certain planet.

Another reason for using bounds rather than signs is that ADB calculates control groups by shuffling the original data, which means that you have the same amount of different dates than in the test group but connected with different years, times and places. The credit side of that is that we have for example the phenomenon called ?baby boom? ? there?s more people born in the late 40?s than anytime else which means that they all have Saturn in about the same two signs. Another point is that more people are born in early spring than in autumn, so we have more people with their Sun in tropical Pisces or Aries than in tropical Virgo or Libra, which is reflected also in positions of Mercury and Venus. If we had a completely random control group, our studies would always show preponderance with Saturn in tropical Leo and the Sun in Pisces or Aries (and Mercury and Venus nearby) and that would twist our studies.

But the minus side of the shuffled control group is that you will never get very clear or meaningful results by studying only signs. If it so happened that your test group actually had emphasis with the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Saturn or Jupiter in certain signs, your control group would almost always reflect that emphasis because the data would have been scattered on the same dates and years! By studying bounds that handicap is not so obvious, but it might be useful to do the study again by using completely random controls.

Clelia Romano wrote:And now I see ( and I include myself in that) that we are trying to get very specific conclusions using comparatively very small samples, when they used a hundred times bigger size samples in their studies!

You probably know that the Gauqelin data is on the net on the C.U.R.A. site http://cura.free.fr/gauq/17archg.html . There are for example 2089 sports champions, 3439 military men, 3647 men of science, 1249 musicians, 1473 painters, 1409 actors, 1003 politicians and 2027 writers and journalists. The mean value of those sample sizes is about 1807. The mean value of my sample sizes is about 976, so we might say that the typical Gauquelin samples were about two times bigger as my samples in the bounds study (not a hundred times bigger).

But in the bounds study I used all the seven traditional planets and their independent positions, so actually that makes the amount of the independent parameters seven times bigger than the amount of charts. So the average sample size in the bounds study is actually about 6832 meaning that for example in the sample of 929 charts (long lived people) we are not studying 929 parameters but 7x929=6503 parameters, 6503 independent agents which can be in any bound. So it?s actually less probable to get results with them than to get results by studying one parameter / chart.

Sari

MarkC wrote:I think this is a very interesting and important discussion but I really don't feel Sari's thread about her website is the place to have it. Your discussion is applicable to astrology as a whole and not just this specific website.

I moved the discussion to the Philosophy forum http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 9670#29670 .

Hi Sari!

Well, strictly speaking my intention was not to try to validate Fagan/Bradley through the study of Egyptian bounds. All the ayanamsas and the tropical zodiac started from an equal position. I used sidereal Lahiri myself when I started the Egyptian bounds study, and it was a bit surprise that Fagan/Bradley did so strong.

Then why did I use such a minor dignity as bounds? Actually bounds were not considered a minor dignity in Hellenistic astrology, but according to some sources they had as much importance as the signs. Why then so few astrologers use them today? Honestly speaking, even traditionalists are not quite sure what to do with them.

I agree with you that bounds are very, very important in Hellenistic astrology, but as far as I understood Valens they are used as" rulers" , a kind of Alchocodem Greek, so they were used more than all to determine the spam of life and sometimes Valens conclude that the nativity had no ruler, or bound good enough, to run the Aphesis from it, instead of the horoskopus, for example.

I know bounds are important, but in the Hellenistic period the sidereal and tropical zodiac are practically the same, so to jump Valens conclusions to tropical houses, rises a methodology problem. In Greece like Greeks, if you get what I mean!

The medieval astrologers are not fluent in Hellenistic astrology like the indians were. So, as Medieval astrology deals with tropical zodiac, the bounds became a nobody?s land. That?s for sure that they existed and Bonatti himself used the direction by terms, but the results, in my point of view, were not so good, may be because he used the tropical zodiac.

I?ll look with interest the face of people having the ASC in the same bound!
Sometimes I try myself some Hellenistic techniques using sideral zodiac and they work well. The important is not mix the medieval understanding of the chart with sidereal zodiac or try to validate Jyotish or Hellenistic techniques using tropical zodiac. In that point the use of whole signs can mitigate the difference of 23? between the two zodiacs, but sometime it?s not enough.

My personal opinion is that it?s because the precession has taken meaning away from the tropical bounds

.

Absolutely! That was what I meant!

Last year I made quite a lot of qualitative research on the bounds and found a lot of meaning in them. I?ll take one example, but here Lahiri works actually better than Fagan/Bradley (there?s a difference of 57?) so I admit this is a bit confusing .

What do William Blatty, Alice Cooper, Harry Lillis Crosby Jr., Jennifer Jason Leigh and David Lynch have in common? Answer: all have written, played or performed roles in horror or otherwise disturbing scenes. William Blatty is the author of ?The Exorcist?; Alice Cooper is a well-known horror rocker, Harry Lillis Crosby Jr. played in ?Friday the 13th?; Jennifer Jason Leigh ?has played a wide variety of disturbing and challenging roles? (ADB); and David Lynch has directed some of the weirdest films of the late 20th century. All have five or six of their seven traditional planets added with the Nodes (meaning five or six planets or points out of nine) in the sidereal bounds of Saturn, the planet of dark regions. I got quite a lot of similar results when collecting charts with emphasis in bounds ruled by a certain planet.

I would be happier if the conclusions linked the cusp of the MC, its significator or even the Lot of Fortune with Saturn?s bounds than with the Nodes that didn?t have anything to do with carreer and the way a person obtains fame. I don?t know if in Jyotish the Nodes are linked with fame: in Hellenistic astrology they aren?t

Another reason for using bounds rather than signs is that ADB calculates control groups by shuffling the original data, which means that you have the same amount of different dates than in the test group but connected with different years, times and places. The credit side of that is that we have for example the phenomenon called ?baby boom? ? there?s more people born in the late 40?s than anytime else which means that they all have Saturn in about the same two signs. Another point is that more people are born in early spring than in autumn, so we have more people with their Sun in tropical Pisces or Aries than in tropical Virgo or Libra, which is reflected also in positions of Mercury and Venus. If we had a completely random control group, our studies would always show preponderance with Saturn in tropical Leo and the Sun in Pisces or Aries (and Mercury and Venus nearby) and that would twist our studies.

In that I agree with you!

You probably know that the Gauqelin data is on the net on the C.U.R.A. site http://cura.free.fr/gauq/17archg.html . There are for example 2089 sports champions, 3439 military men, 3647 men of science, 1249 musicians, 1473 painters, 1409 actors, 1003 politicians and 2027 writers and journalists. The mean value of those sample sizes is about 1807. The mean value of my sample sizes is about 976, so we might say that the typical Gauquelin samples were about two times bigger as my samples in the bounds study (not a hundred times bigger).

I was not referring to this study, but to the broader one.
In the same site http://cura.free.fr/gauq/17archg.html we see all the data he worked with, and we have 15.943 profesionals, 15,943 professional notabilities, 24.950 data for experiment on hereditarity, besides the other ones you quoted. It?s a lot of data,hu?
The matter on which he reached more important results was about the heredity issue ( 24.950 samples) After this 25,000 charts were analyzed yielded that parents and children were more likely to share traits in the their charts than not. He did not find match ups in Sun/Sun, Moon/Moon combinations, but he did find that certain planets. Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were more likely to share zodiac signs than statistical probability would indicate.
And of course I?m not counting the replications and the " children" this data would bring when doing the experiment.
I?ts not the place to describe Guaguelin?s work, though
All this to say that he worked with a huge amount of cases, and his conclusios are modest, even if brilliants and necessary.

Now I?ll look your site to see the pictures!

best

Clelia

Hi Clelia!

I would be happier if the conclusions linked the cusp of the MC, its significator or even the Lot of Fortune with Saturn?s bounds than with the Nodes that didn?t have anything to do with carreer and the way a person obtains fame. I don?t know if in Jyotish the Nodes are linked with fame: in Hellenistic astrology they aren?t

The point of the study was to take out charts that share a certain very exceptional feature. It?s not hard to find charts with, say, the MC ruler in a bound of Saturn, and by looking at them we would easily end up with thousands of charts. From that pool it would be easy to pick up charts that suit our theory, whatever that might be.

But if we have about 10 000 charts, like with ADB when you take out all the public figures with a birth time rated B or more, and take several dozens of charts out that all have something quite extraordinary there like majority of the planets somewhere, in the same sign or house, or in bounds ruled by the same planet, and if you then see a pattern there, that?s meaningful. In that way it should be more difficult to fool yourself to see something there that you wanted to see. The more we have something in a horoscope, the more clearly that something should feature in a person?s life (or so I would think).

About shuffling the data: I was wrong in a previous post when I wrote that ADB by default shuffles the dates so that an emphasis in a Sun sign always gets duplicated in the control group. The default settings for creating a control group leave the dates out which is good. Therefore we can in fact safely study the (faster) planets in signs. The sign position of Jupiter and Saturn still get affected, though, because the birth years are taken into consideration.

Sari

The world loves statistics - although within any doctrine the artist has to manage his practice according to the case at hand. I think it is great that someone within astrology will produce the statistics. Statistics shows astrology from a different perspective. How the artist maneuvers within the picture or landscape that the statistics attempts to describe, may be an entirely different matter.

Not all runners follow the same training program or eat the same diet. A doctor does not give all clients of a certain the same treatment.