Hello Margherita and all

Clelia Romano wrote:
"In summary a star is said to be in paran with a planet when a the planet is on any of the four points of rising, culminating, setting, or on the Nadir, and at the same moment in time, for that location, the star is also on ANY of the same four angles or points. "

I think it is the same thing, Margherita: to rise together.

No, a paranatellonta rises together with a portion of the ecliptic (a decan) or a degree, NOT with a planet.

Thanks por pointed it out!
My quotation was from Helena Avelar?s and Luis Ribeiro?s book, who stated that parans is the same as paranatellonta.
As I said in some post to you, planets are wonderers, you can?t base your observation or reference point on them.
It is why I also pay attention to angles and not to planets in conjunction with stars.

Anyway I don't use stars in a sidereal way,.

I?m not sure if to use them in a sidereal way is the best strategy. I?ll have to ask about their principles to put a star in some degree of the ecliptic.

as Ed I put them in the chart according their semiarc (and this is could be like Brady in a way because she considers the angles) but I don't consider aspects between them and planets, just conjunction.

So you consider stars in conjunction with planets? Or only with angles?

Moreover I don't consider stars which don't have a mention in Renaissance texts.

You must have motives to do that.
Zoller has a spiritual point of view about fixed stars, the 8th realm. And it is a way of thinking more alike with my own. Renaissance brought a more scientific mentality( that is good) but it lacks spirituality and philosophical interest. Greeks gave birth to the astrology and they were mostly philosophers: I like more this kind of approach.
When I finish my book I will focus in the subject with much more time and comprehensiveness.
Then maybe I?ll be able to write something with more structure and making more sense

Thank you all for the discussion!

Cl?lia

Hello Mark!

No, the divergence occurs when you transform the RA into ecliptic degrees. More or less 1 degree.

When I raised precisely this question on the thread I gave the link to several members chipped in to suggest nothing was lost in the conversion process. I have given what I think is the correct explanation for the discrepencies in Ptolemy's catalogue from modern positions. However, I invite members like Ed F, Eddy etc who are clearly better on maths to give their view. Unlike issues of astrological technique this mathematical issue should have a black and white answer.

I can say I?m a low IQ in Maths: I always was. I think this is a real challenge to understand maths language. This can possibly bring some confusion in the communication.

Let me see if I understood it well: zodiacal projection you are not agreeing is the same ecliptic projection I was claiming against in my first post?

I use the term 'zodiacal projection' for the astrological technique whereby a star's position is placed on to a degree of the tropical zodiac irrespective how far north or south its latititute or its declination is. I have not got into arguing for or against the technique at this stage so I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. This technique standardises a star's position anywhere on Earth and takes no account of the rising times, or visibility of a star etc in a specific location. Its the method you see commonly used in traditional astrology after the classical era. For example, William Lilly's Christian Astrology. Subsequent books such as Vivian Robson use this method too. The first astrological book in English I have seen criticising the shortcomings of this method was George Noonan in his book on fixed stars.

Very good explanation! Now it is clearer

Thanks Mark!

Cl?lia

Clelia Romano wrote:
So you consider stars in conjunction with planets? Or only with angles?

When I want to be accurate in a birth chart I annotate stars which are in conjunction with planets (according their hourly distance) and stars at angles.

Moreover I don't consider stars which don't have a mention in Renaissance texts.

Because I don't like astro-psycho stuff, I'm tired of it.

I look forward to reading your book, good luck for it.

margherita

Margherita wrote:

Moreover I don't consider stars which don't have a mention in Renaissance texts.

Because I don't like astro-psycho stuff, I'm tired of it.

Fine. Why just renaissance though? Your renaissance lists are bit standardised. In the classical period we have stars like Rigel Kentaurus (aka Alpha Centauri/ Bungula/Toliman) that Europe literaly lost sight of due to precession A useful star/constellation for people living in Brazil though

Mark

MarkC wrote:Margherita wrote:

Moreover I don't consider stars which don't have a mention in Renaissance texts.

Because I don't like astro-psycho stuff, I'm tired of it.

Fine. Why just renaissance though? Your renaissance lists are bit standardised. In the classical period we have stars like Rigel Kentaurus that Europe literaly lost sight of due to precession!

Mark

I use Medieval and ancient catalogues too.

But Rigel Kentaurus is always below the horizon in Rome, it never rises, I cannot put in my charts.

margherita

I use Medieval and ancient catalogues too.

I thought so. Maybe renaissance astrology is just a period of personal preference.

But Rigel Kentaurus is always below the horizon in Rome, it never rises, I cannot put in my charts

.

Well of course. Anonymous of 379 says he cannot use Canopus as he is in Rome and it was not visible from there.

Margherita you are going to have to crack eventually and look at some charts south of the equator! As you know Rigel Kentaurus gets to the horizon from about 29 North. Dont you look at charts in other parts of the world? No wonder you never got into analysis on the recent World Cup in South Africa! Looks like Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games will be a problem too.

Mark

[Fine. Why just renaissance though? Your renaissance lists are bit standardised. In the classical period we have stars like Rigel Kentaurus (aka Alpha Centauri/ Bungula/Toliman) that Europe literaly lost sight of due to precession A useful star/constellation for people living in Brazil though

O Mark, what a nice and good example of parans ( sorry, paranellonta)!
I have that star in conjunction with the Moon, but my Moon is in fall
in the 2nd house.

best

Cl?lia

Hello Margherita:

Moreover I don't consider stars which don't have a mention in Renaissance texts.

Because I don't like astro-psycho stuff, I'm tired of it.

If you think that Zoller?s thinking has something to do with the " psychological stuff" as the modern astrology has, you?re pretty wrong, my dear friend.
The more I read his course the more I see he is an alchimist, a magician, a real scholar in Judaism, Hermeticism, Cabala, Sabeanism, etc: a philosopher to define him in few words.

I?m tired of psychologic stuff, as well. I was a psychoanalist and I broke up with my pairs saying good bye to all my academic past because astrology gave me much more wisdom and consequently peace of mind and forgiveness than anything else.

I look forward to reading your book, good luck for it.

Thank you for your votes! Unhappily it will be in Portuguese and the reason why I?m writing is that we don?t have any traditional material in Portuguese, besides Helena and Luis book, but they live in Europe and it?s expensive to bring the books: for me it is kind of a sacrifice, demanding lots of time and responsability, but someone had to do it!
I?m learning a lot, and this is a nice compensation: our present discussion is an example of it!

best

Cl?lia

Hello Clelia,

O Mark, what a nice and good example of parans ( sorry, paranellonta)!
I have that star in conjunction with the Moon, but my Moon is in fall
in the 2nd house.

Interesting a Scorpio Moon too eh? What a coincidence. Me too. Margherita is a Scorpio Moon too as I recall.

I am rather fond of Rigel Kentaurus. Although I confess I have never actually seen it! When I first studied fixed stars-Ebertin, Robson etc I was pleased to see my natal Moon was on this star by zodiacal projection ie around 28-29 Scorpio. I only learned later the astronomical reality that its declination was -61 south of the equator it was never visible in my location.

Still, this constellation is part of the classical myth of Chiron. When talking to groups of modern astrologers on fixed stars I always say that if they want to see the 'real' Chiron they should go to a location where they can watch the constellation of Centaurus. Placed there by Zeus no less!

I can say I?m a low IQ in Maths: I always was. I think this is a real challenge to understand maths language.

You too? I would certainly have been useless in the old days before astrological software. It seems we both fit that old saying of 'the blind leading the blind'. Thankfully, I realised I had an old PM exchange with Eddy on the issue you raised about converting star positions from RA/Declination to longitude/latitude. He didn't seem to think it was a problem. Whether you start off in RA or ecliptical longitude it leads to the same result if you convert back again.

He stated he agreed with this post from another member:

Johannes wrote:
Once a star's position is determined it can be converted in ecliptical or equatorial measurement or contrariwise. But the position itself, projected on the Ecliptic and measured in ecliptical longitude and latitude remains always the same even then when calculated first to right ascension and then to ecliptical longitude - or vice versa. Both systems lead you to the same star!

Personally, I think Bernadette Brady should have explained her point better. Its clear several people like you and I have come away thinking the reforms of Regiomontanus altered the ecliptical longitude of the fixed stars. Plus English is my first language! As I suggested the real reason I think for the discrepancy between the tables of Ptolemy and modern ones was simply a calculation error in the Almagest. The point is totally academic to Brady though as she rejects zodiacal projection anyway!!! I suspect its a Trojan Horse argument on her part.

You probably know this but to recap there are several techniques for working with fixed stars. For example:

1 Paranatellonta-constellation or individual star co-rising together with a portion of the ecliptic (a decan) or a degree (in mundo or zodiacal projection?)
2 In mundo square/opposition of star to planet on angles (Brady's 'paran')
3 Zodiacal projection of star to the ecliptic
4 conjunction of stars to angles/planets by celestial declination

Regards

Mark

If you think that Zoller?s thinking has something to do with the " psychological stuff" as the modern astrology has, you?re pretty wrong, my dear friend. The more I read his course the more I see he is an alchimist, a magician, a real scholar in Judaism, Hermeticism, Cabala, Sabeanism, etc: a philosopher to define him in few words.

Knowing Margherita from the forum discussions over the years I can assure you that is not what she meant. Her comments were directed to modern astrology which she, like many of us, has studied and moved away from after finding it unsatisfactory. I think she just has a particular passion for renaissance astrology. Remember she is Italian and this was arguably Italy's golden cultural and astrological age. However, as you will see from her blog her interest spans throughout the tradition. She is a real fan of Ben Dykes in case you hadn't noticed. Frankly who isn't?

Robert Zoller is clearly a very sincere man with a deep spiritual understanding underpinning his approach to the craft. Its a shame that his health and other issues have prevented him teaching more students in the last few years. Still, he has already given more to astrology than most of can dream of in a lifetime.

Good luck on your book. It sounds like Brazil is badly in need of some good material on traditional astrology. Are you networking with any other Brazilian members here on skyscript? For example PFN or Yuzuru (no longer in Brazil but a mine of information!)

Sorry I got a bit carried away earlier. Fixed stars tends to do that to me.

Mark

Hello Mark:

Interesting a Scorpio Moon too eh? What a coincidence. Me too. Margherita is a Scorpio Moon too as I recall.

I had an idea that Margherita was a Scorpio Moon! But I was really curious to know about your chart, because we raised the same question almost at the same time, even if you are much more advanced in the fixed stars?study than me.
This is a real coincidence: the only person I ever knew to have the Moon at the same degree I have was ...my Mom!

I am rather fond of Rigel Kentaurus. Although I confess I have never actually seen it! When I first studied fixed stars-Ebertin, Robson etc I was pleased to see my natal Moon was on this star by zodiacal projection ie around 28-29 Scorpio. I only learned later the astronomical reality that its declination was -61 south of the equator it was never visible in my location.

Don?t be sad;-) Perhaps she( the star) is of any help with my Moon.

Still, this constellation is part of the classical myth of Chiron. When talking to groups of modern astrologers on fixed stars I always say that if they want to see the 'real' Chiron they should go to a location where they can watch the constellation of Centaurus. Placed there by Zeus no less!

Well, well ...Now I?m feeling in heavens

I can say I?m a low IQ in Maths: I always was. I think this is a real challenge to understand maths language.

You too? I would certainly have been useless in the old days before astrological software

.

I learned how to cast a chart manually when computers for domestic use were unavaiable, so I?m not properly a dumb, but I used to make some " little mistakes" counting, with clamsy results, like: " Hi, sis, I did your chart, and you are a Gemini rising! And after a day: "sorry,sister, I did a little mistake, as a matter of fact you?re a Leo rising. And so on...
Thank Gods in those times my clients were family!

It seems we both fit that old saying of 'the blind leading the blind'.

Come on Mark, do not underestimate yourself!
Gosh, I own you a great time laughting!

Thankfully, I realised I had an old PM exchange with Eddy on the issue you raised about converting star positions from RA/Declination to longitude/latitude. He didn't seem to think it was a problem. Whether you start off in RA or ecliptical longitude it leads to the same result if you convert back again.

For him it is easy, for me it is not so easy;-) But I believe you that the question is not so important !

He stated he agreed with this post from another member:

Johannes wrote:
Once a star's position is determined it can be converted in ecliptical or equatorial measurement or contrariwise. But the position itself, projected on the Ecliptic and measured in ecliptical longitude and latitude remains always the same even then when calculated first to right ascension and then to ecliptical longitude - or vice versa. Both systems lead you to the same star!

Personally, I think Bernadette Brady should have explained her point better. Its clear several people like you and I have come away thinking the reforms of Regiomontanus altered the ecliptical longitude of the fixed stars. Plus English is my first language! As I suggested the real reason I think for the discrepancy between the tables of Ptolemy and modern ones was simply a calculation error in the Almagest. The point is totally academic to Brady though as she rejects zodiacal projection anyway!!! I suspect its a Trojan Horse argument on her part.

You are right: that kind of reasoning was not necessary and lead us to wrong paths. I was luck to find persons like you, Margherita, Ed, to clarify my ideas.

You probably know this but to recap there are several techniques for working with fixed stars. For example:

1 Paranatellonta-constellation or individual star co-rising together with a portion of the ecliptic (a decan) or a degree (in mundo or zodiacal projection?)
2 In mundo square/opposition of star to planet on angles (Brady's 'paran')
3 Zodiacal projection of star to the ecliptic
4 conjunction of stars to angles/planets by celestial declination

I had not the idea so clear: thank you for telling me!

I have to say that you gave much of yourself to this discussion: I really appreciated that!

best wishes

Cl?lia

I had an idea that Margherita was a Scorpio Moon! But I was really curious to know about your chart, because we raised the same question almost at the same time, even if you are much more advanced in the fixed stars?study than me.

It seems all three of us have the Moon in close conjunction.

I guess its just that fixed stars are a passion of mine. I really like the fact they connect us to the ancient visual origins of astrology and and its myths. If we stripped away the whole astrological tradition and started from scratch any new astrology would need to incorporate fixed stars. You find them in any astrological tradition that has existed on earth. Can we really say the same of lots, antiscia, sect, or even houses?

Still inspired by what you, Robert Hand, Joseph Crane, Chris Brennan, Steven Birchfield and Dorian Greenbaum have written on the lots I have been working with the lot of Spirit for the first time. Very useful! I still find derived lots based on other lots (the Hermetic lots) a bit hard to accept but I am keeping an open mind on the subject.

I perhaps exagerrated a bit. I did do manual chart calculation in the days before PC's. However, it was a cumbersome process. I do welcome software that can save us time on calculation and give more time to reflect on the phiolosophy underlining our astrology. Still, I think its useful to do manual calculation when you are learning.

Regards

Mark