Moderation comment 109 by Deb James, first you say this: As I said before, I don't wish to argue with you. Which is great - just what we like to hear ... But then you say this: If there is a fault in the chart as presented, show how it doesn't fit. So far, you have not, you have only helped confirm it. Which is really quite arrogant and challenging; the kind of remark that is bound to make someone feel like arguing with you! I feel impartial in this discussion and haven't studied any of the charts, so I can tell you that whilst you raise some very interesting remarks about the chart you favour, nothing Lisa said helped to confirm it. This thread would be much better if people kept to forwarding their own views, and didn't get so sidetracked into arguments against other people's suggestions. (I don't meant to imply that James is responsible for this, by any means, as he has to deal with this being done to him too.) Deb Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:43 am
110 by lisa Gunhilde wrote:Chiron in the 3rd talks about his painful relationship with his siblings, Painful? I don't think so. His relationship with his siblings, especially his sisters, was apparently very close and supportive, despite the fact that he outshone all of them in terms of fame and fortune. The one he had a problem with (and understandably so) was Daddy. Re: I don't recall him getting involved in worthy causes. "We are the world/We are the children/We are the ones who make a brighter day/So let's start giving." ..?? He co-wrote this with Lionel Richie? USA for Africa, famine relief? Revenues over 63 MILLION dollars for the charity? Not involved in worthy causes? ...Perhaps you're not old enough to remember this phenomenon, which is forgiveable, but let's not say he wasn't involved in worthy causes! GH My information is he had a fraught relationship with most of his siblings. As to charity, yes to Live Aid and a few other things. But no to someone who we 'associate' with putting himself out for others. Would he meet the criteria of a philanthropist? If yes, and a bit of googling enables me to see how someone would argue that he was, then does this ensure the Moon is in the 11th house, or can we just say well Moon in Pisces he was bound to want to help out the lost, needy, unfortunate and downtrodden once he made a few dollars? Do you recall the ridicule he faced after the Brits ceremony for putting on the 'I am God act', the intelligent world tended to see him as this absurd self-centred adolescent didn't they? Nb- A psychologist might suggest that as he became 'public property' from a young age he didn't have the opportunity to develop an 'identity', so M Jackson was more of a myth than a man, or something like this. So have we been reading different papers, seeing different news stories or the same ones and getting the chart(s) to fit? Lisa Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:42 am
111 by CentralScrutinizer Hello Deb, Thank you for always trying to approach things fairly. I surely do think that you always are attempting to do the right/fair thing. Re: "Which is really quite arrogant and challenging; the kind of remark that is bound to make someone feel like arguing with you!" We don't see that the same way, but I will accept that someone could certainly take my comments and be inspired to argue with me, though I don't feel that they would be BOUND to do so. Re: "...so I can tell you that whilst you raise some very interesting remarks about the chart you favour, nothing Lisa said helped to confirm it." Again, we don't exactly see this the same way. Lisa raised points relating to Michael's life (some of them wrong, such as his WELL-DOCUMENTED philanthropy, which anyone with 2 mins, an internet connection and Google can affirm). They are easily seen in the presented chart. Easily. This makes the comments a confirmation more than a refutation. Re: "This thread would be much better if people kept to forwarding their own views, and didn't get so sidetracked into arguments against other people's suggestions." Now we are to the crux of the biscuit. Isaac rectified the birthtime. (Brilliantly, in my OPINION.) I have quoted his findings because I found great corroboration in the positionings and can't "break" them no matter which events I research. Where others HAVE criticized the chart time that I put forth, though with nothing that wasn't subjective in nature, I have 90% of the time DEFENDED the chart. For me to be in defense so often (though an admittedly enjoyable defense) only shows that it is others who are on the offensive. Secondly, it is put forth by many great astrologers, especially rectification-oriented ones that CHARACTER DELINEATION from the Natal is NOT a reliable method in rectification. The tight timing of dynamic structures with tight orbs and unchanging symbolism, IS. Still, what you said was brilliant, Deb. "This thread would be much better if people kept forwarding their own views...." With that in mind, I will certainly endeavor that I don't get side-tracked into silly arguments. I WOULD like to put forth very exacting information on why the 11:29:06 PM chart is the chart that works. So that this is seen as a blind experiment and not "stacking the cards" in favor of some precalculated events....would someone like to present 2 or 3 events in Michael Jackson's life? I will gladly research the Topocentric Primary Directions (especially) and post my findings, so that others can judge for themselves if they see an absolute congruity. Thank you... James Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:59 am
112 by lisa James You are very certain about a lot of this, but avoided the main question as to your response if you find out at some point you have the 'wrong' time. This is what I find more interesting. I read the A McDermott article some time ago, it's too New Age for me. I'm not dismissing the Vertex but am yet to read anything about it that is coming from, in my view, an intelligent enough space. Same as regards the Pre-natal epoch, Lunar mansions, Hellenistic time lord procedures, Temperament, Ceres, etc. I don't dismiss any of it in the meantime. You commented that if I don't have a view on something then I must find it irrelevant. I notice you avoided commenting on what the Bolivian 7 sign Zodiac has to say about Jackson, are you dismissing it? I find very few astrological writings interesting, but the few that I do are enough to retain my interest. No I don't expect you to agree with me. As we approach astrology differently then we are likely to gravitate towards different judgements as to which chart is likely to be the correct one. Which is why I asked about your sources. Deb wrote this in 2004: The difficulty I see in the chart is that a great deal of strain is expressed through the midheaven. Saturn rules and is aspecting the MC by sextile from an angular house, which describes a lot of hard work and responsibility attached to professional interests but capable of bearing good results. The opposition of Venus brings an extreme of fame, popularity and sexual interest. That?s descriptive of Michael?s early career, except his fame became phenomenal ? other factors such as ascendant-ruler Mercury?s sextile to Jupiter and trine to Saturn contributes but ultimately I think it?s very difficult to distinguish between a great deal of something and a phenomenal amount of something. (If I saw a chart like this at birth I could say that the career will be very important, receive a lot of attention and be the source of much success but also much misery, but I don?t see how I could say ?this person will take the world by storm?). If we think about the sextile between Saturn and the MC in terms of indicating how easily his public persona is received by public attention then we can understand why someone who was celebrated for his talent and charisma is of no less interest for his peculiarities and sordid secrets. In fact Saturn as the MC-ruler is quite malefic when it is placed on the descendant - the hostile western angle which is associated with attacks from other people or events. And although the Moon is disposed by Jupiter and located upon the 11th house of good fortune and well-received ambitions, it is applying closely to the square Saturn and so forewarning of downfall and the possibility of disgrace. Ascendant-ruler Mercury reinforces this to make it a predictable likelihood by translating via retrograde motion between the sextile of Jupiter (success in early life) to the very malefic 12th house Mars (trouble in later life). Venus is trine to Saturn - an aspect of very mixed blessings depending upon whether Saturn is capable of expressing responsibility or destruction. Earlier I described Venus' opposition to the MC as too much sexual attention and when we consider that Venus rules the 12th house of tribulation and self-undoing we realise how potentially-damaging this aspect is. Venus is surrounded by malefics (separating from Uranus, applying to Saturn and Mars) and it is closing in on retrograde Mercury. The highly afflicted state of Mercury, as ruler of the ascendant, describes a very confused and unsettled person, struggling with his persona ? retrograding towards Venus, he is striving to beautify his physical appearance but because of all the malefics involved that only brings further dissatisfaction. Mercury also rules the 5th house and afflicted allows creative talent to diminish in the striving for pleasure and indulgence. Being in close aspect to the nodes makes Mercury a particularly fateful planet. It is possible to consider Mercury as the ruler of the 5th house of children, applying only to the malefics (immediately to Mars in the 12th, through Saturn, to 12th-ruler Venus) as indicative of his current troubles. To me this reads as a selfish or at least self-indulgent urge to seek out the company of children, mainly boys as this is Mercury applying to Mars, and through this creating his own downfall and self-destruction. There are certainly enough indications of sexual problems in this chart with the 5th ruler retrograding to the square of Mars in the 12th, any aspect of Saturn as ruler of the 8th, and a destructive Venus. The 5th ruler square Mars could be read as abuse, but whether that is self-abuse, or abuse directed towards others or received from others is open to question. Probably it is all of those because there is such a hard collection of difficult energies that could easily explain why MJ seems ?screwed up? to the rest of us. In all this the Sun is very weak; unaspected except for contact to the outers, a loose application to the square of Saturn, and the separating opposition of the Moon which is translating its influence to the square of Saturn; in other words denying it an outlet. Like asc-ruler Mercury it is buried away in the 4th house showing no real integration with the professional image that the public hates or loves. He clings to isolation and privacy, wants to recapture his ?lost childhood? and would probably climb back in the womb if he could! Since the Sun reveals the essential spirit of a person, the potential of Michael?s true character appears to have been crushed and ignored. The conjunction with Pluto shows a much more profound sense of power and depth of character than his superficial media image allows us to understand but the sextile to Neptune in the 6th reveals a confusion in how to apply it and a dissipation of his essential energy - which might make him ultra-sensitive but it also introduces physical weakness and spiritual confusion. So where is Pluto?s energy going? Pluto is supposed to indicate the principle of transformation, but the flip-side of Pluto, which will often be seen when it is tied to a resistant Sun, is a remarkably obstinate will to remain just as one is! The only transformational urges that MJ appears to be recognising are those he applies to his face. Many elements of this chart indicate rejection of personal responsibility and maturity. It seems that responsibility has been applied externally and forced upon him but the Moon?s square to Saturn shows that emotionally he rejects it ? probably the single most important cause of all his woes. As Sue says, the transit of Pluto has now reached the conjunction of Saturn, a make or break influence at a time when many other powerful and personally challenging aspects are coming to fruition. I have no doubt that MJ had a hard childhood, though I haven?t explored that in the chart it?s all there, but what is crucial to him now, as Pluto joins Saturn and Uranus opposes the Sun, is that he has to break down the barriers that prevent him from maturing and developing his strength of character. Those barriers seem to be his trait of clinging to a lost past and the ease with which he assigns responsibility for his problems over to other people and unfortunate circumstances. Regardless of the validity of the charges brought against him, the chart shows he has brought his problems upon himself. If he doesn?t see that and accept it, the future looks very grim indeed. With so much affliction in such a hard chart and Saturn ruling the 8th, it could even be the death of him. Perhaps Deb can comment on how she views this analysis now in the light of the data being so apparently dubious in 2009. Deb now says she feels impartial and hasn't studied any of the charts, which is odd! In the chart I referred to, he has Aquarius on the MC (there's the freak element) with Uranus angular and conjunct Venus, there's the root for his peculiar sense of aesthetics and his "transformations" of appearance, freaky as they are/were. There is also the incredible personal magnetism and his unusual tastes. What was unusual about his ?aesthetic?? He produced bland pop music for 30 or so years. I think we are at the agreeing to disagree stage. I'm not just doing a psychological recrtification here. You could have a look at the 30/11/82, release of Thriller and look at the directions, not just primary, for this date. Lisa Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:14 am
113 by CentralScrutinizer Hello Lisa, As per my previous post to Deb, I have plenty of comments to make, but don't see the efficacy in doing so. I'll just sit this one out. James Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:17 am
114 by CentralScrutinizer Hello Deb, You mentioned that you hadn't studied ANY of the Michael Jackson charts. Lisa posted something and implied that you wrote it. This chart appears to be basically the same chart that I put forth. (you had Gemini rising and Sun and Mercury (at least) in the 4th, same as the Starkman rectified chart) Now I am confused. You wrote a really long article about the chart, but didn't study it? We want some answers. James Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:30 am
115 by Deb Perhaps Deb can comment on how she views this analysis now in the light of the data being so apparently dubious in 2009. Deb now says she feels impartial and hasn't studied any of the charts, which is odd! As soon as I said I was impartial, I just knew something like this was going to happen I blanked out on the fact that I commented on this chart several years ago. This is not unusual - clients are often surprised to be told that I often remember virtually nothing of my consultations. The truth is that at the moment I am working on other things, so I don't even have the time to re-read and think about my old comments. I'm sure they were excellent though - whenever I work with celebrity charts I try to keep in mind that the data is probably iffy, so the emphasis should go to themes. Oh .. I suppose I'd better read what I've written... Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:35 am
116 by Deb Quickly read a couple of paragraphs... sorry I don't have time to go into detail on this. It all seems pretty good stuff to me, and I obviously agree with myself otherwise I wouldn't have published those remarks (but where did I publish them ??) And to clarify, yes I obviously used a chart as a basis for my remarks, because I don't just make things up out of thin air (!). The one I would have used is the one published on this site, which I'm inserting below. However - to defend my proclaimed impartiality - I also think that my Beethoven chart analysis is wonderful, and yet some other astrologers do say that the time for that is questionable too. I can't be absolutely sure that the data is precise for either of these charts, but since my own view is that astrology works through an instrument (the astrologer), I worry more about keeping the instrument polished, tuned and harmonious, and then a little bum note now and then gets lost in the overall melody. Deb PS - OK, purely personally speaking (yet, I really *don't* care), I did say right at the start of this thread that I thought a Gemini ascendant made sense, because of MJ's physical appearance. I do believe that the physical reflects the spiritual and so the chart should relate to the obvious physical features (whether natural, or somehow aquired throughout the life). Nuff said, he's the chart I used, which I took on trust to be the most reliable data available at the time Last edited by Deb on Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:48 am
Michael Jackson Birth time Problem 117 by Pamela Young For what it's worth, I was very impressed by Deb's article on Michael Jackson, and her discussion pushed me towards accepting that Jackson had Gemini rising. I started out using the chart Liz Greene had published in her book "The Dark of the Soul" which gave him Scorpio rising, just assuming it was accurate as she didn't indicate in her discussion that there was any suggestion that it wasn't. But I do think now that Jackson had Gemini rising. I'm actually using the time of 12:13 am which was printed on a fan site ( www.jacksonaction.com ). I'm not certain this time has been mentioned on this thread, but it's been brought up in the Astrodatabank discussion about Jackson over at Astrodienst. This fan site has birth data for everyone in his family, as well as this actual time for him; it gives him Gemini rising, chart ruler Mercury bang on the IC, the Sun-Pluto conjunction in the 4th, Moon in the 10th and Saturn on the Descendant. Since this fan site seems to have access to information that others don't, I'm accepting this time for now until a sighted birth certificate turns up. Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:55 am
Starkman - Jiger charts 118 by jiger James, You wrote: Secondly, it is put forth by many great astrologers, especially rectification-oriented ones that CHARACTER DELINEATION from the Natal is NOT a reliable method in rectification. The tight timing of dynamic structures with tight orbs and unchanging symbolism, IS. So please comment on what I wrote earlier using generally accepted or well known teqniques that everyone can follow: In the chart suggested by me the progr MC is conjunct natal Moon around sept 1 1994 and the quinqunce to natal Venus will be exact around March 1 1995. Finally progr MC will form the exact square to natal Saturn around Feb 1 1997. The configuration square, trine, quincunce is considerd to be a learning triangle by the Huber School and it obviously means that you are going through a tuff period of learning considering the planets involved when the configuration is activated by transits or progressions. Saturn is in the natal 7th house, so among many things this is a learning period concerning love relationships. It may also involve eating and addiction problems (Moon) and hard work and resposibility(Saturn). During the period late 1993 until 1996 MJ had addiction problems, lost weight, married twice and divorced once. From Sept-96 until oct-97 MJ engaged in the History World Tour performing 82 concerts in 58 countries (talk about hard work!) when progr MC squared Saturn. He also got his first son (responsibility). There is of course much more to say about this? BUT the whole of this sequence would have ocurred some 4 years earlier with Starkman?s TOB! Jiger Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:38 pm
119 by CentralScrutinizer Hello Deb, I can certainly relate! I get the same thing from my clients. They often have to relate to me what I said. I just don't hold onto that info once it's been shared. I do make client notes, but keeping it all in my head filed away for later reference? Forget about it! I *AM* glad that others are finding some usefulness in the Gemini rising chart as per your delineation. It's fuel for my cause. Have fun and we all know that you weren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes, so to speak. It was a harmless oversight. Peace James Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:50 pm
120 by lisa Deb, I'm getting the impression if he was born at 5.22am you would continue to call yourself an astrologer. Pamela, You are articulating the problem here perfectly. I think the 12.13 has been discussed here already, another source or smokescreen. James, What can I say, good thing we aren't discussing what's called 'objective reality' in 2009. Quote Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:30 pm