Good lord. I can see I?ll have a lot of explaining to do whenever I come home from work. I don?t know if I can keep up. Here goes.

Uh? how do you snip a quote? I didn?t see how to do this in the instructions

Hi Sue,

I agree when you say, "We should not be afraid to be critical of our own craft." However, that is not what I find much of the time. When it comes to the Gauquelin findings, a lot of the so-called self-criticism doesn't seem to come from the astrological worldview at all, but only repeats the words of the skeptics.

Don't get me wrong, the arguments by skeptics are definitely worth considering and contribute to a dialog that astrologers should participate in much more than they do. I have a chapter in my book (see my web site) devoted to critical thinking wherein I examine some of the more notable claims on both sides of the debate. On the whole, I think that astrologers, when confronted by the skeptics, tend to ignore the deeper examination of their own principles, give up too easily, and accept what they are told. This is what I mean by astrologers being unduly influenced.

Where does your belief that "statistics don't mean anything to the individual" come from? What's the astrological basis? To me this belief seems to directly echo the words of the skeptics, and it's an exaggeration.

Contrary to this belief, I believe that everything we actually know in astrology is based on correlation through astrology's ongoing practical research. If astrology is nothing more than an application of symbols, then why would ancient Babylonian and Chinese astrologers bother to keep the extensive records they did? Apparently they wanted to verify their findings against the historical record and reduce their bias. It's the same method that scientists use today. In my discussions with scientists, I've found some good common ground based on this easily appreciated understanding.

Common ground means that my belief, coming from an astological perspective, meets with their belief, coming from a scientific perspective. To gain this common ground, I've had to abandon the belief that astrology is nothing more than an application of symbols, which I for one am willing to do.

Fran?oise Gauquelin urged astrologers to use the Gauquelin statistical findings, saying it is one of the most certain and practical things that astrologers can use today. She certainly does not have any trouble seeing how the findings would ?fit into a practical setting,? and she is extremely critical of astrology. When I had my practice, I found the findings to be not only practical but also a source of useful ideas.

You say that astrologers get so excited by evidence of statistical significance. Where is this excitement? It's very sad that Michel Gauquelin could hardly fill more than a few seats wherever he lectured and the audiences he did manage to attract were nearly falling asleep from boredom. That's the reality I've seen.

I believe the real problem is that Gauquelin presented some challenges to astrology and astrologers as a whole have not been up to the task of examining their own beliefs and developing ideas to match the tangible results.

Hi Papretis,

You are correct, Lassen's proposed solution shifts the houses clockwise by one house. I should pay better attention. I'll also add that I find this arrangement bizare. If Lassen's houses are shifted but have the same meanings, then I have trouble with the groupings.

For example, houses 1, 12, and 11 would occupy the same quadrant together. If the upper hemisphere represents public life, as Rob Hand and the consensus of astrologers say, then why would something as personal as the house representing the physical body (1st house) be there?

Why would the 10th house, representing career, where you need mainly to compete, be on the DSC side of the chart, the hemisphere of cooperation and social accord with others? Why would the 4th house be in the lower rising quadrant; I'd think the expectation is to have love and cooperation rather than competition within the home and family.

I believe that the signs, houses, and aspects follow a similar developmental pattern and this Lassen arrangement makes no sense. Why sould the ASC angle (a major transition) fall between houses 1 and 2? I don't think I'm alone when I say these Lassen houses clash with my reason, experience, and beliefs.

Because the houses represent a cycle, and I associate cycles with development, I think the houses mean more than a way to define the strength of the planets. In my view what's needed is a house system that is both developmental and consistently interprets the g-sectors/shekinah as contributing to charisma or "strength."

Compared to Lassen's unusual arrangement of houses, Michel Gauquelin's reverse order houses make more sense because it keeps the house quadrants together with regard to compete/cooperate and public/private (although this one is inverted).

Good work!

Hi Andrew,

You said: ?Correlations between configurations do not have a causative relationship nor do they represent a deterministic influence. Astrology is, therefore, non-falsifiable and unverifiable, but this does not invalidate it as a 'way of knowing.?

I'm with you on thinking the astrological correlations do not have a causative relationship, nor are they deterministic, but the rest of this statement does not necessarily follow. I think you are equating correlation with statistics.

For example, I believe I have the ossuary of the apostle James in my museum. I've made this correlation because the ossuary is inscribed "James, brother of Jesus" on the side. Later it is discovered to be a fraud. My belief is therefore falsified, invalidated, and my way of knowing, intuition, creative engagement with the world, etc. was incorrect.

What does that have to do with statistics? Nothing. Falsifiability is not confined to statistics or causal determinants. It is the weight of evidence that made the ossuary a fraud. Many beliefs stated in astrology are potentially falsifiable. If they weren?t then we wouldn't be enjoying this little exchange.

Astrologers should not describe the Gauquelin findings as ?anomaly.? Why? If Gauquelin?s findings mean anything at all at the very least they have confirmed the expected astrological properties of the planets. If it?s expected, then how can it be an ?anomaly?? Let?s please refrain from using the skeptic?s term for this. Has everyone been brainwashed?

With regard to the g-sectors/shekinah debate, you state that a planet conjunct an angle in a cadent house has the same influence as a planet conjunct the angle in the adjacent angular house. If this were true, then we'd expect the distribution to peak at the angle and spread evenly on both sides, but the findings show otherwise. How do you explain this?

KennethM

You said: ?Correlations between configurations do not have a causative relationship nor do they represent a deterministic influence. Astrology is, therefore, non-falsifiable and unverifiable, but this does not invalidate it as a 'way of knowing.?

I'm with you on thinking the astrological correlations do not have a causative relationship, nor are they deterministic, but the rest of this statement does not necessarily follow. I think you are equating correlation with statistics.

Correlation does not imply causation but may be an apparently physical property shared by events without the requisite corollary of a classical cause-effect relationship, as shown for example in quantum physics where widely separated events can be correlated without being linked by a direct physical cause-effect. Synchronicity embodies the principle of correlation as the expressive interdependence of objective events among themselves with or without the subjective participation of the observing psyche. The astrological symbolon of the noumenal world mirrors the flow of life on earth and reflects back to us the truth of our lives imprinted deep within our souls. This has little if anything to do with attempts to verify influences through recourse to statistical evaluations of meta-physical paradigms.

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule identify several modes or ways of knowing; notably authoritarian knowing, received knowing, subjective knowing, procedural knowing, connected knowing, separated knowing, and constructed knowing. Connected knowing is rooted in the conviction that truth is personal, particular, and grounded in actual experience, whereas separated knowing relies strictly on linear reason. Constructed knowing integrates both connected knowing and separated knowing, and it is this latter way of knowing which astrological traditions and conventions seem to exemplify, not unlike those associated with music, art, emotions, etc.

For example, I believe I have the ossuary of the apostle James in my museum. I've made this correlation because the ossuary is inscribed "James, brother of Jesus" on the side. Later it is discovered to be a fraud. My belief is therefore falsified, invalidated, and my way of knowing, intuition, creative engagement with the world, etc. was incorrect.

What does that have to do with statistics? Nothing. Falsifiability is not confined to statistics or causal determinants. It is the weight of evidence that made the ossuary a fraud. Many beliefs stated in astrology are potentially falsifiable. If they weren?t then we wouldn't be enjoying this little exchange.

This depends on the worldview in which the belief is interpreted or the perspective from which it is communicated. Science does not generally concern itself with questions of ultimate origins because such questions are beyond its purvue. Theologians, not scientists, attempt to offer proofs of God, and they do so entirely within the framework of theological discourse. If one regards astrological directives as normative rather than descriptive, in the sense that the horoscope reflects who one ought to be rather than who one actually is, then the question of evidence is immaterial. Astrology was created centuries before the development of modern psychometric measures such as personality inventories and trait analyses, and I think it is a profound mistake to confuse these. It leads to attempts to 'prove' the 'truth' of astrological descriptions through recourse to statistical research.

Astrologers should not describe the Gauquelin findings as ?anomaly.? Why? If Gauquelin?s findings mean anything at all at the very least they have confirmed the expected astrological properties of the planets. If it?s expected, then how can it be an ?anomaly?? Let?s please refrain from using the skeptic?s term for this. Has everyone been brainwashed?

'Anomaly' is a statistician's term which is occasionally used by skeptics, just as 'horoscope' is an astrologer's term which is occasionally employed by publishers. My reference to statistical anomalies was made with regard to the 'failure' of the Gauquelin research to obtain expected 'confirmation' for the presence of other planetary properties. But then I regard research of this kind as anomalous anyway. It is like trying to quantify the number of Mars units in an Aries, or the number of emoticons in a human emotion. If you define a unit or an emoticon in a certain way, you will definitely obtain a certain result. I don't see how this applies to the metaphysical or divinatory model of 'reality' suggested by astrology, unless one claims that one has 'proof' of an astral influence, and is able to offer some kind of empirical evidence to support such an assertion or, in the absence of that, to claim that 'evidence' really means 'non-evidence' in 'your science' but 'proof' in 'my science.'

With regard to the g-sectors/shekinah debate, you state that a planet conjunct an angle in a cadent house has the same influence as a planet conjunct the angle in the adjacent angular house. If this were true, then we'd expect the distribution to peak at the angle and spread evenly on both sides, but the findings show otherwise. How do you explain this?

I don't know. Let's revise the parameters and fiddle with the findings. Then we can explain anything!

Andrew!!!!!!!!

or the number of emoticons in a human emotion

. . . you're in terrible danger of me actually beginning to follow your argument

I don't know. Let's revise the parameters and fiddle with the findings. Then we can explain anything!

Oh go on! . . . you know you love to play the devil's advocate.

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule identify several modes or ways of knowing; notably authoritarian knowing, received knowing, subjective knowing, procedural knowing, connected knowing, separated knowing, and constructed knowing. Connected knowing is rooted in the conviction that truth is personal, particular, and grounded in actual experience, whereas separated knowing relies strictly on linear reason. Constructed knowing integrates both connected knowing and separated knowing, and it is this latter way of knowing which astrological traditions and conventions seem to exemplify, not unlike those associated with music, art, emotions, etc.

Thank you - I never knew that before

Andrew said:

Connected knowing is rooted in the conviction that truth is personal, particular, and grounded in actual experience, whereas separated knowing relies strictly on linear reason.

A man went to the doctor and explained that he was dead. ?Don?t be ridiculous,? said the doctor, ?of course you?re not dead.? The man insisted that he was indeed dead. The doctor asked the man whether dead men bleed. The man agreed that, no, everyone knows dead men don?t bleed. The doctor then proceeded to prick the man with a scalpel whereby he started to bleed. ?Well, what do you know?? said the man. ?Dead men do bleed.?

Truth is often what you make it. Sometimes it is far easier to accept a false belief than to shift a fixed position regardless of the ?evidence?. However, I don?t see statistics as evidence of anything other than the statistics themselves. The Gauquelin data showed that 20% of military leaders had Mars on an angle. The chance factor was rated at around 17%. Okay, that may be a fact. But regardless of the fact that there is a million to one chance of the statistics being as high as they are, these are still pretty poor odds. As Tom pointed out, this shows that most military leaders do not have Mars in this placement. There must be other factors that got the remaining 80% into these positions.

Kenneth said:

Where does your belief that "statistics don't mean anything to the individual" come from? What's the astrological basis? To me this belief seems to directly echo the words of the skeptics, and it's an exaggeration.

I can assure you that I am not echoing anything but my own beliefs. I did statistics for two years in my undergraduate degree. It may have been quite some time ago but I know how easy it is for statistics to either be faked, misread, misinterpreted etc. It was part of my course to be able to use the same statistics to support opposing arguments. I am not for a minute suggesting that the Gauquelins falsified evidence. I don't believe that is true. However, having been given the statistics, it is often open to interpretation. That is why it is so easy for the ?sceptics? to mount opposing arguments using the same data. But why I say that statistics do not mean anything to the individual relates to something that Tom has alluded to. Just because an individual has Mars on an angle, it does not necessarily make them better qualified for a military career than someone who doesn?t have Mars on an angle. The fact that 20% of people already in military careers do have Mars on an angle is irrelevant to that individual. These statistics only show us that these military people have Mars in this position, not that having Mars in this position makes them good military leaders. It also tells us nothing about the state of that Mars or the state of the rest of the chart.

Tom said:

A computer program recently determined that the number of things they found were statistically impossible to occur by chance. The "scientific" conclusion is that the Hebrew Bible was likely written by God since no man could do all this.

Is that the same as the belief that if you give enough monkeys typewriters one of them would come up with a novel?

And speaking of God, why is it that, when it comes to astrology, absence of proof equates to disproving astrology whereas a large percentage of them are happy to accept a belief in God with no proof whatsoever?

Where does your belief that "statistics don't mean anything to the individual" come from? What's the astrological basis?

If no one else told you, I didn't read everything since my last post yet, you highlight the pasted text and click on "Quote" above.]

One example should suffice. I am a middle aged, married, college educated American male. I am quite certain that there are statistical studies that show how, according to those studies, people in my demogrpahic group would behave in a particular situation. How they are likely to vote for example, or whether or not they would like opera. However, regardless of how rigorous those studies are, they apply to a particular group. They cannot guarantee how I would behave, only provide good odds how people like me would behave in that situation. This common sense understanding does not need an astrological basis. Gamblers understand it almost intuitively.

Sue writes:

Is that the same as the belief that if you give enough monkeys typewriters one of them would come up with a novel?

It sure seems that way.

And speaking of God, why is it that, when it comes to astrology, absence of proof equates to disproving astrology whereas a large percentage of them are happy to accept a belief in God with no proof whatsoever?

Oh Sue we need to talk. The enemies of astrology are far more likely to be found amongst the atheists than the religious. It is chic in the US right now for the left to blame all their recent political defeats on religious fundamentalists. They're quite wrong, but in their case, scapegoats make self-examination unnecessary. Let's not fall into the same trap. James Randi and Richard Dawkins are atheists. To my knowledge, the most prominent religious fundamentalist in the US, Jerry Falwell, hasn't ever mentioned astrology. I'm far more wary of statisticians who disingenuously or otherwise, manipulate opinion based on numbers alone (e.g. public opinion polls). Like a lot of other things, statistics have value; they are not omnipotent.

However, I agree that we are subject to a double standard. Our beliefs require scientific proof in order to be valid, while some beliefs of others do not. If I'm not mistaken (as I wander into an area I am woefully incompetent), gravity, the most fundmental phenomenon in physics, has no known mechanism. How do they get away with that? Leaving us all alone is a better way to behave.

Best

Tom

Oh Sue we need to talk.

Any time, Tom.

The enemies of astrology are far more likely to be found amongst the atheists than the religious.

I wasn't talking about the enemies so much. Almost all scientists would agree that astrology is not valid because there is no scientific evidence to support its validity. But most scientists are Christian or Muslim. They don't seem to need any evidence to support their beliefs.

James Randi and Richard Dawkins are atheists.

And they reject religion on similar grounds to their objections to astrology. At least they show consistency and are not being hypocritical. Yet Richard Dawkins' favourite scientist, Isaac Newton, had a belief in both.

To my knowledge, the most prominent religious fundamentalist in the US, Jerry Falwell, hasn't ever mentioned astrology.

Yes, but we're not talking about a rejection of astrology based on religious grounds. If Jerry Falwell voiced an objection to astrology it would not be because it couldn't be proven scientifically but rather because it went against the will of God. Scientists object to astrology because of lack of evidence but they don't object to religion on those grounds.

However, I agree that we are subject to a double standard. Our beliefs require scientific proof in order to be valid, while some beliefs of others do not.

Like you, I'm not that interested in the scientific validation of astrology, particularly validation on their terms. I don't understand the need to fit astrology into a scientific paradigm. As far as I am concened, that would lead to a reductionist attitude. Astrology is far more than that.

Cheers
Sue

Hi Kenneth,

There is a lot to catch up with in this thread. Going back to your initial point.

Although I hadn?t done much research, it seemed to me that I might have read somewhere that in ancient times a rising planet (in the 12th house) was auspicious

(Eze. 43:4) And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. (Eze. 43:5) So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Knight and Lomas describe how Solomon tried to learn the secrets of temple building from the King of Tyre, a true king. They also mention much earlier structures oriented to capture the glory of helical Venus, such as the Newgrange megalithic structure in Ireland. The efforts made to capture this glory light are apparently very ancient.

I?ve never come across any ancient text that has referred to the 12th house as auspicious. There are two elements of symbolism being mixed together here. It?s certainly true that a planet emerging in its heliacal rising is considered newly invigorated and refreshed in energy. Because risings are associated with the east, ancient astrology also recognised the eastern angle as symbolically important in matters of birth, emergence to power and uprisings. But visibility was also an important consideration ? the brighter the star, the more potent its force. Hence a ?bright star in the east? would support an astrological prophecy of the birth of a new king, or emergence of a new world leader ? the eastern aspect would relate to the fact that the force is emerging and the brightness of the star would relate to the magnitude of power.

Although ancient astrology set great store on helical risings, planets that are emerging from the Sun are not bright; they are only making their first tentative appearance. And even bright stars that are clear of the Sun don?t appear with brightness in the 12th house, (ancient astrologers would only be able to recognise ?a bright star in the east? if it were located in the 11th or 10th house, or at least towards the end of the 12th house). It is the lack of visibility that gives planets in the 12th house their unfortunate reputation. Ptolemy called it the house of Evil Daemon because its acute angle to the ascendant ?injures the emanation from the stars in it to the Earth and is also declining, and the thick, misty exhalations from the moistures of the Earth creates such turbidity and, as it were, obscurity, that the stars do not appear in either their true colours or magnitudes? (Tetrabiblos, III.10).


The discussion on Ptolemy?s numeration of the houses is a red herring, except it confirms the importance of diurnal motion in the underlying symbolism. We know that Ptolemy is talking about what we term the 12th house because he precisely describes its location. Fran?oise Gauquelin refers to Ptolemy?s description of the 12th house as ?declining? as a gross error, saying that stars within it are ?ascending? not ?declining?; but Ptolemy described it correctly according to the prevalent view - it is a declining house because the planets within it are carried away (by diurnal motion) from an angle, which is conceived as the seat of power. This view sees the angles as celestial supports that draw the planets towards them. As they get closer to the angle they get more affected by the power of the angle, but once they have passed it, they are drawn to the angle that lies ahead by diurnal motion; so 12th house planets have fallen past the eastern angle and are drawn to the midheaven, but being farthest away from the midheaven are least affected by its strength.

Because of Ptolemy?s influence I doubt you?ll find a subsequent western text that contradicts the essentially weak nature of the 12th house influence. Most have built upon it, ascribing conditions of imprisonment and inhibition, a sense of being trapped, unable to express itself freely, operating in darkness, etc. We can?t really trace house meanings much earlier back either. The oldest text that we know of which describes their meaning is the Astronomica by Manilius, and that also describes the 12th house as a ?temple of ill omen, hostile to future activity and all too fruitful of bane? which ?moves dejected from a cardinal point with the spectacle of ruin before its eyes? (2.865).

Manilius was less acknowledging of the eastern influence than Ptolemy. Personally I don?t see how we can have a house that fundamentally expresses loss within a quadrant that is fundamentally associated with ascension. To me the 12th house is more about curtailment and the suspension of power than the real loss of it.

You may have something here about a more ancient recognition of planets visibly emerging in the east as being revealing of some form of glory, but anything that you find in Hellenistic or traditional texts is likely to be overshadowed by the dominating symbolic recognition of decline and poor representation of light. If you want to pursue a quest for traditional support I think you?ll need to focus your efforts in pre-classical sources. Egyptian and Babylonian lore is more likely to put the emphasis on the ascending / eastern element, and would not have been so affected by the notion of angles or houses having such a limited orb of influence.

I don?t think Gauquelin?s work should be ignored, even though at the moment I agree with Tom, our understanding of this is too inadequate for practical application. It bugs me that tradition instructs us to consider a planet 5 degrees above the ascendant as partaking of the ascendant?s strength, and an astrologer like Lilly was happy to extend that orb in practice, and we have statistical evidence to suggest we should be extending it further; yet how much is too far? We don?t really seem to know.

. . . you're in terrible danger of me actually beginning to follow your argument

Well, clearly, you can read, so that's a start!

Oh go on! . . . you know you love to play the devil's advocate.

Uh, if you say so...just call me Satan's Slave, I guess...

Thank you - I never knew that before

Okey doke. Take care.

I wasn't talking about the enemies so much. Almost all scientists would agree that astrology is not valid because there is no scientific evidence to support its validity. But most scientists are Christian or Muslim. They don't seem to need any evidence to support their beliefs.

Some scientists (the ones with integrity, perhaps?) believe that the validity of astrology, not unlike the existence of God, is a topic on which science cannot pronounce, as the meta-paradigm of astrology lies outside the proper scope of scientific investigation. Astrology embraces a non-rational (in contrast to either a rational or an irrational) worldview, whereas experimental science is, by definition, strictly concerned with linear logic and rational thought. I often tell people who ask me if I 'believe' in astrology that no, I don't. I am neither a believer nor a skeptic, for I no more 'believe' in astrology than I 'believe' in music or dancing or painting or sculpture. There can only be skeptics when there are believers to rail against the skeptics who rail against the believers.

Hi Kenneth,

?Eventually I became aware from observations, and protests from clients who had many cadent planets, that cadent planets actually tended to favor an outgoing personality, which I began to think of as ?high profile,? as contrasted with ?low profile? (angular planets), or ?moody? (succeedent planets).?

Generally speaking, my observations follow along similar lines ? cadent I connect with mutables in the natural scheme of things, and the mutables tend to be more ?out there? leading to higher 'visibility'... when it comes to the 12th, perhaps more ?out there? from a behind the scenes type position, for example authors or editors etc.

Afterall, ?Saturn rejoices in this house (12th); Lilly notes: "for naturally Saturn is author of mischief'? ? takes a certain discipline to be able to confine oneself when it comes to writing or editing etc, an author becomes a visibly mis(sing)-chief!

I think the word ?weak? can be somewhat misleading at times. Afterall, the 9th is the house of God, associated with the Divine, one may be weakened or humbled in the face of God (appreciation and respect for a force greater than the individual) but arriving at an understanding of human frailty I wouldn?t consider weak ? I think this word requires caution as it calls for a value judgement, values being a 2nd-8th matter and necessitates a shift in perception when moving from judging the outcome of something to advising someone on their natal chart.

Cadent = Fall and the cadent houses fall away from the angles, or fall toward the angles depending which way we go, ie. primary motion, secondary motion. For example, 12th to 1st could be seen as the ?Fall? into physical manifestation, reversing it could be seen as withdrawal or ?falling away? for some higher (or lower, or behind the scenes) pursuit ? and to manifest anything requires a peak of energy before it?s brought into reality after which the energy expended changes modality.

I like the way John Frawley describes the houses in his ?The Real Astrology Applied?:

"But the whole picture of the mundane houses succeeding each other in regular order like the spokes on a wheel is misleading. Rather than being a wheel, the chart is in fact an assemblage of four groups of three houses.
"Nor even are these groups divided in our usual way of seeing the four quadrants of the chart ? The four angles are the structural key to the chart. The houses following each of the angular houses in an anti-clockwise direction are the ?succeedent? houses (2,5,8,11) because they follow or succeed to the angles.
"But the succedent houses are the last of each group of three, not the centre of it as is common to think.?

So, 4 groups of 3 Houses then this suggests H12=1; H1=2; H2=3 in terms of where energy peaks within each of the groups of three houses, ie. Frawley: ?Our chart, then, can be seen less as a flat circle than as a group of four mountains, each of which has a smaller hill on either side of it.?

I noticed the earlier post in this thread on numbering and thought this might have had something to do with distinguishing between primary motion (relative to ourselves created by the Earth?s rotation ? clockwise) and secondary motion as the planets move through the various signs (celestial houses) and mundane houses of the zodiac which proceeds in the opposite direction (counter-clockwise).
So when we?re looking at a chart, the primary motion is clockwise with planets rising in the East, at the Ascendant, and traversing the houses in reverse numerical order, eg. 12th, 11th, 10th while at the same time we?re seeing the planets in secondary motion traversing the houses in anti-clockwise direction, bringing ?heaven down to earth? (into our physical reality) for interpretive purposes. Separating the motions?

?it seemed to me that I might have read somewhere that in ancient times a rising planet (in the 12th house) was auspicious.?

Does it have to be in 12th? Or is this any planet rising before the Sun, wherever it may happen to be located? Noel Tyl has researched this from vocational pov.

With the 12th?s co-significators being Pisces and Venus, I think what you mentioned about the ?Divine Shekinah? does tie in. Noting also that the 12th is feminine & nocturnal and that the Zohar identifies Israel with the Shekhinah as the ?Bride of the Holy One? ? unification between masculine-feminine principles.
?The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah, Recovering the Key to Hebraic Sacred Science? by Leonora Leet might be of interest to you if you haven?t already read it.

In appreciation,
TS.

Hi Everyone,

I enjoyed reading this thread. It's clear that it's not possible to discuss a topic like the shekinah and Gauquelin without bringing everyone's beliefs into the picture and exploring the relation between belief and knowledge.

Some of you present astrology as belief, apart from science. When asked "Do you believe in astrology?" someone once responded "Do you believe in cat food?". But the two are not the same. Cat food is not a system. It's not as simple as that.

Is this belief a question of faith? Meaning that you must not abandon your faith in astrology or your life will be worse? I don't think any of us thinks that.

To Gauquelin, astrological belief is based on knowledge that must come from science, which implies some sort of research. In the past, this knowledge was deleloped through a process I'd like to call practical research, as contrasted to experimental research. Practical research is developed through case studies, comparisons, and consensus through discussions. It was a very slow inductive process. Gauquelin wanted to speed things up by applying the tools of modern science.

How do we know someting in astrology? How do we assure ourselves that that knowledge is valid and that we can trust it and believe in it? What we do is we sample our experience and share with ohters. In other words, we need to do science at some level. That is what we are doing right here. At least this is one component of astrology's practical research.

Gauquelin was a good astrologer and he knew what to look for. He tested for many things and was many times disappointed. Eventually he found something that supports astrology and is replicable. There's no turning back from this point onward because one of the keys has already unlocked a door. Yes, this approach is reductionist, but that's probably the way our brains are made. Astrology does not need to be severely reductionist because modern science accepts fuzzy logic.

Gauquelin gave us a problem with houses, but he also confirmed the expected astrological properties of the planets. The connection was strange but the connection was made nevertheless. Moon goes with writers, Saturn with doctors and scientists, Jupiter with actors and politicians, and so on. We can point to these results to support the validity of our beliefs. The results turned out to be just as we said they would.

We should not be too distrustful of the statistical findings in astrology because the methods used in their discovery is only a refinement and acceleration of the slow, inductive process that astrology has traditionally used. I miss my conversations with Michel. I met him only a few times, but I thought of him as a friend. From this point astrology will proceed by large speculative leaps instead of tiny inductive steps. I know that Michel would agree with this approach and that is what I've tried to do in my book.

Thankyou Deb for your discussion about the 12th house. That puts a lot of what I'm looking for into perspective. I also like what Tumbling Sphinx wrote. I'd like to return to the notion of the rising planets (in H12) being "strong." I use quotes here for a reason. Gauquelin used the word "strong" and this is one of the points I discussed with him. I didn't think the planets should be considered to be strong in some places and weak in other places. This might clash with horary interpretation, or traditional interpretation, but I accept it intuitively. Gauquelin was never adamant about anything except dinner and he listened very openly.

My understanding, which is based on Dane Rudhyar's humanistic view of astrology, is that planets are all strong for certain things, your gifts, which you need to discover according to their placements. There are no good or bad charts. We make our planets functional or dysfunctional.

In my former practice, when I saw individuals with lots of 12th house planets these were the Gauquelin "strong". But in my mind there was nothing "cadent" or "mutable" about them. They were standout leaders, dressed to impress, they wore bangles or obvious jewelry, they had loud resonant voices, they commanded attention wherever they went, they had an irresistable beauty. They were charismatic. Not all were like this but by far the majority were. I called them the "high profile" people. They lived in the spotlight. I sometimes wondered to myself, can they ever escape the spotlight, would they ever want to?

I wonder if others who practice have seen this.

KennethM