Traditional Indian astrology considers both North and South Lunar Node as malefics. This appears more logic to me.

Deb wrote:

The South Node as with the North is simply a place where eclipses and Lunations can occur. In this light there is nothing to mark any difference between the two, apart from the fact that North is ascending into the Northern hemisphere while South descends into the Southern hemisphere.

I don?t subscribe to this. From a purely objective point of view, that?s correct, but astrology is not purely objective ? it is filled with symbolic associations and meaning applied to notions of ascension and descension. Anyone who sees things this way may as well argue that eclipses are simply places where the luminaries meet ? and the Sun is just a ball of light.

I too have my doubts about the Nodes. I feel very attracted to the 'scientific' approach rather than the 'symbolical', however the latter probably is indispensable if the former cannot be totally explained. I don't think this approach distracts too far from traditional approach. Ptolemy's approach was highly 'scientific' for his days and Kepler tried other scientific approaches in the light of heliocentrism.

In Jim Tester's 'A History of Western Astrology' p.162 he writes that only after the Middle Ages the Lunar Nodes had 'materialized' which was contrary to the spirit of Ptolemy. http://books.google.nl/books?id=L0HSvH9 ... #PPA162,M1
In this article http://www.springerlink.com/content/q02 ... lltext.pdf
shortly is mentioned that: "They did not follow Ptolemy in rejecting the moon's nodes as pseudo-planets and useless additions to pure astrology." But I don't know where Ptolemy said this.

If the two Nodes do have different meanings related to an approach related to the northern hemisphere of the Earth, then I can accept that their character might alter on Earth's southern hemisphere.

In the recent Venus thread Margherita mentioned something about the thoughts of Renaissance astrologers on the astrological signs on the southern hemisphere. I hope I don't interpreted too loosely. It is on page 2 in case for need of the whole context.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

Gjiada wrote:

Further there is the problem of the location on Earth. A while ago MarkC and I exchanged some PM's in which he mentioned Maurice McCann who thinks that on the southern hemisphere the rulerships should be reversed. Other astrologers also mention this and this seems very logic to me. Furthermore attributing the temperaments to the seasons in the locations in the tropics would add even other difficulties.

In CieloeTerra they reverse the signs in fact. Let's say now Sun is in Aries, they put in Libra for the southern hemisphere. They follow Cardano, Campanella and (surprise) Placido

To be precise Cardano suggests to save the sign name but swithes domiciles, so in practise it's easier switch the signs.

So could this be applied to the Nodes as well?

Another remark is that it is quite difficult to astronomical theoretically define the Lunar Nodes. Using the 'Mean' Node it can occur that the Moon is conjunct the Node but not on the ecliptic. The 'True' Node on the other side doesn't seem to be that 'true' at all as the ?'s 2.2.1. & 2.2.2. of this article http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph. ... c226863925 shows.

It may be noted that I like a lot to theorize the matter. However I also try to put things in astrology to a 'test' as far as that is possible when looking in ones own chart. I doubt about the Nodes because I don't really 'notice' their transits. Yet they sometimes would be welcome if I hadn't Uranus or Neptune at 'my disposal'. There are a few 'events' in my life during Node transits that do make me think though.

So however I have my doubts about the Nodes, for the time being I give them the benefit of the doubt .

Hello Eddy,

Eddy wrote:
In this article http://www.springerlink.com/content/q02 ... lltext.pdf
shortly is mentioned that: "They did not follow Ptolemy in rejecting the moon's nodes as pseudo-planets and useless additions to pure astrology." But I don't know where Ptolemy said this.

But Ptolemy uses nodes:
"To these influences and their effects, as above detailed, the Moon also contributes: for, should she be in the bends of her southern or northern boundary, she will render the properties of the mind more various, more versatile in art, and more susceptible of change: if she be in her nodes, she will make them more acute, more practical, and more active." Tetr. III,18

And Cardano, who hates Arab astrology uses nodes too..


But next sentence in the text you mentioned is true: " And the monks embraced the view of the medieval Arab scholar Albumasar (Abu Macsar), who attested to their powerful effects."

Albumasar quote in "Albumasar in Sadan" about the use of nodes in ritual magic and talismans is very famous.

If the two Nodes do have different meanings related to an approach related to the northern hemisphere of the Earth, then I can accept that their character might alter on Earth's southern hemisphere.
So could this be applied to the Nodes as well?

But why? nodes are measured the ecliptic, hemispheres on the equator...Or I'm wrong? My knowledge of astronomy is infamous

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:But Ptolemy uses nodes:
"To these influences and their effects, as above detailed, the Moon also contributes: for, should she be in the bends of her southern or northern boundary, she will render the properties of the mind more various, more versatile in art, and more susceptible of change: if she be in her nodes, she will make them more acute, more practical, and more active." Tetr. III,18

Hi Margherita,
I remember we exchanged some thoughts on the nodes over here, http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4192

It seems that Ptolemy mentions the nodes only in relation to the (place of the) Moon not as independent things that can aspect other planets etc. So perhaps could it be that he rejected the latter while using the former view?

Gjiada wrote:

If the two Nodes do have different meanings related to an approach related to the northern hemisphere of the Earth, then I can accept that their character might alter on Earth's southern hemisphere.
So could this be applied to the Nodes as well?

But why? nodes are measured the ecliptic, hemispheres on the equator...Or I'm wrong? My knowledge of astronomy is infamous

Yes you are correct. But it seems that the symbolism of the nodes is related to the going 'up' respectively 'down' of them (but I'm not sure about that). In my attempt to see astrology in an astronomical context I don't really see a difference. I wonder for example why the North node is 'Caput' and the South node is 'Cauda'. In Australia it would then seem more probable to reverse them. It's symbolism and perhaps I'm a bit too theoretical/technical .

I suddenly wonder if the English "head or tails" when tossing a coin is related to this

Eddy wrote: But it seems that the symbolism of the nodes is related to the going 'up' respectively 'down' of them (but I'm not sure about that). In my attempt to see astrology in an astronomical context I don't really see a difference. I wonder for example why the North node is 'Caput' and the South node is 'Cauda'. In Australia it would then seem more probable to reverse them. It's symbolism and perhaps I'm a bit too theoretical/technical .

Hi Eddy,
. . . or perhaps not theoretical/technical enough in this case? In geographical and astronomical view north ist up, and south is down. Northern declination is +, southern minus. Head is up, tail down.

And the compass needle is directing northwards, always, even beyond the equator in the southern - Australian - hemisphere.

Hello,

Eddy wrote: It seems that Ptolemy mentions the nodes only in relation to the (place of the) Moon not as independent things that can aspect other planets etc. So perhaps could it be that he rejected the latter while using the former view?

Ok, now I understand. I really have no idea, I don't remember he says explicitly they don't work, but on the other hand I don't remember any example as the one you are mentioning.

But they were used in Rethorius or Dorotheus, before the magical use, I mean.
Nodes were used in astrology, this is evident, they are not a late addition.

I suddenly wonder if the English "head or tails" when tossing a coin is related to this

No hope, here we say "head" and "cross"

Margherita

johannes susato wrote:In geographical and astronomical view north ist up, and south is down. Northern declination is +, southern minus. Head is up, tail down.

And the compass needle is directing northwards, always, even beyond the equator in the southern - Australian - hemisphere.

Still I don't really feel comfortable with this . It still is a subjective choice to me. The Australians would consider everything over there is up and in Europe upside down. It's like the traffic. On the European continent the cars drive on the right side of the road and in England on the other side. This is also a choice, but obviously in this case the English made the wrong one .

Gjiada wrote:Ok, now I understand. I really have no idea, I don't remember he says explicitly they don't work, but on the other hand I don't remember any example as the one you are mentioning.

But they were used in Rethorius or Dorotheus, before the magical use, I mean.
Nodes were used in astrology, this is evident, they are not a late addition.

Here, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/283969.pdf , I read that Ptolemy was different from his contemporaries in the use of astrology. He often (respectfully) disagreed with them according to the article.

The Dutch say, "Head or Coin", well at least the "Head" is always there .
However some say "Cross or Coin" .

Eddy wrote: I read that Ptolemy was different from his contemporaries in the use of astrology. He often (respectfully) disagreed with them according to the article.

Surely you are right, I see every time when I attend my lessons, I have a direct experience, trust me
In every case the problem is just the well known problem, that we have not charts from Ptolemy, so I try to collect from different authors.

Moreover I hate Teachers and Experts of experts, I'm very allergic, I can be wrong by myself without following others' mistake, I don't want follow blindly what one says, even Ptolemy.

In every case I should admit that Nodes are not the first thing I see in a chart

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:Moreover I hate Teachers and Experts of experts, I'm very allergic, I can be wrong by myself without following others' mistake, I don't want follow blindly what one says, even Ptolemy.

I feel the same way too. The thing I like about Ptolemy is that the explanations of the planets and signs in the Tetrabiblos are an attempt to explain the effects of these in a scientific way related to what the scientists in those days believed.

I've just read the article by Cleleia Romano in which she says that "the Moon at the bendings may be the greatest calamity a person can face.?

I have to take strong exception to this statement. I did a quick run through some of my charts and found seven examples of family, friends and clients who have the Moon at the bendings. All of these people have experienced life's ups and downs to be sure, but none has had what anyone would call a "calamitous" life by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact I'd say that at least half of them have achieved more than average success and happiness in life.

Blanket statements based on a single configuration in a chart just do not hold water and can be very damaging.

Tara

"Blanket statements based on a single configuration in a chart just do not hold water and can be very damaging. "

I agree.
One problem that is quite frequent in astrology research is trying to prove a point without fully delineating a chart.

Yes, this person committed suicide and he had the nodes, quiron, pluto or Cupid, in this and that position, ok.

But without a fully delineation we don?t have any elements to conclude that any configuration has any effect over the life of the native. yes, he commited suicide and he has quiron squaring pluto, or whatever. But how are the moon and mercury? The almuten figuris? the 9th house? the ruler of asc?

Without this, all we can see are results that are very dependent of the sample, and as Tara demonstrated, can be easily contradicted by other samples.

That is the main reason why the search for "astrosignatures" is a such a disapointing (and in my opinion, useless) matter

yuzuru wrote:"Blanket statements based on a single configuration in a chart just do not hold water and can be very damaging. "

I agree.
One problem that is quite frequent in astrology research is trying to prove a point without fully delineating a chart.

True, but in defence of the researchers I must say that astrology quite often is presented through meanings of 'single configurations'.

Eddy wrote;

... in defence of the researchers I must say that astrology quite often is presented through meanings of 'single configurations'.

Yes but Cleleia Romano in her article declares that having the Moon square the nodes was "the greatest calamity a person can face." And if I can quickly find seven charts with this configuration and see that those involved do not have "calamitous" lives, how much research went into her statement?

Tara