James_M wrote:

i am going to repeat - i see a lot of parallels in the interest in fixed stars and the interest in TNO's.. both are wanting to understand astronomical knowledge in some astrological context better.. to me on one level there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE!

I accept there is a commonality in that both stars and TNO are physical realities in our cosmos. We might distinguish them from secondary or derived points such as lots or midpoints which and are in a sense one place removed from the such a direct source.

However, there are still important differences for me.

Fixed Stars

1 There are thousands of years of background behind our astrological work with fixed stars. The lore of some fixed stars (e.g. Regulus) go back to the Babylonians. Use of fixed stars has been a part of the astrological tradition since its inception.

2 They are observable to the naked eye and we require no technology to see thousands of stars (although light pollution has tended to destroy that ancient and arguably sacred connection).

3 We know today that stars are not objects in our solar system but lie far beyond it as Suns in their own right.

TNOs

1. Their discovery is very recent. In some instances ( Eris) not even a decade!

2. They are invisible to the naked eye. We only know of their existence due to a geostationary telescope.

3 There is no established astrological consensus on what these objects mean yet.

4 They lie out from the core of our solar system

I personally, see more commonality in comparison between the TNOs and other invisible newly discovered objects in our solar system such as the centaurs. I think people working with the centaurs are more likely to readily embrace TNOs.

I agree though that both TNO's and fixed stars are an expansion of our understanding of what a horoscope represents. Working with them requires us to think outside the usual astrological vocabulary of planets, signs, houses and aspects. I have worked a lot on research into comets and Nova too which are other ways we can reach out to the mysterious cosmos around us to find symbolic meaning.

Mark

Mark wrote:2. They are invisible to the naked eye. We only know of their existence due to a geostationary telescope.

All of them have been discovered by means of ground-based telescopes.

Invisible to the naked eye?

This makes me wonder how the lunar nodes look to the naked eye, or the house cusps, or the sign boundaries. Like the tno's you can know where they are only by means of abstract mathematical manipulations, and unlike the tno's, they don't even physically exist.

A simple transit, progression, or direction to the radix chart is not only invisible but physically impossible, so they can never be "seen"... and so on with a lot of of traditional horoscopics: most of it is not physically visible, and a lot of it is physically non-existent.

Naked-eye visibility will take one back to the original Babylonian astrology, but it seems to me that it takes us in the wrong direction towards an understanding of Greek horoscopics --what we usually call "tradition"-- which has little to do with what is physically visible, such as for example working with the ecliptic longitude of a star instead of the star itself.

Juan

Mark wrote: Fixed Stars

1 There are thousands of years of background behind our astrological work with fixed stars. The lore of some fixed stars (e.g. Regulus) go back to the Babylonians. Use of fixed stars has been a part of the astrological tradition since its inception.
TNOs

1. Their discovery is very recent. In some instances ( Eris) not even a decade!

Mark

i think these points are essentially differentiating between a ''traditional'' verses ''modern'' focus in astrology which is what i believe i was getting at earlier.

regarding point 3 on the TNO's - from my own point of view there is no established consensus on a lot of astrology, not just TNO's and there relevance or meaning.

that is interesting your consideration and research on comets and nova. i think people can find symbolism anywhere they are receptive.

Think about this list.

Jim

HORMONE LAYER
NUMBER NAME PERIOD OP C H MEANING
YR # #
(119951) 2002 KX14 (243)08 1 4.5 WORK?
(120348) 2004 TY364(244)06 1 4.3 IQ
(175113) 2004 PF115(245)07 1 4.2 ?
2003 UZ413(245)10 1 4.3 LIGHTNING
(144897) 2004 UX10 (245)15 1 4.5
(90482) Orcus (245)15 1 2.3 DEATH
(84922) 2003 VS2 (247)08 1 4.2 SURRENDER
(208996) 2003 AZ84 (247)07 1 3.8 FANATIC
(38628) Huya (247)07 1 4.7 NASTY?
2002 XV93 (248)10 1 4.9 ?
2007 JH43 (249)07 1 4.7 ?
(47171) 1999 TC36 (250)06 1 4.7 ?
(28978) Ixion (250)12 1 3.2 TO DIE FOR
(134340) Pluto (251)78 1 -0.7 POWER & SEX

(145452) 2005 RN43 (267)13 21 3.9 DOCTOR
2008 AP129(270)06 22 4.5 ?
2002 MS4 (270)12 22 3.7 JOKER
(24835) 1995 SM55 (273)10 24 4.8 LOVE
(90568) 2004 GV9 (274)06 24 4.0 CREATION
(120347) Salacia (275)11 25 4.3 MEDIA

(55637) 2002 UX25 (281)09 31 3.6 ORDER
(145453) 2005 RR43 (282)07 31 4.0 NERVE
(120178) 2003 OP32 (283)06 32 4.1 OPTIC
(55636) 2002 TX300(284)07 35 3.3 AUDIO
(20000) Varuna (284)13 36 3.6 MATERIALISM
(308193) 2005 CB79 (284)07 36 4.7 ?
(50000) Quaoar (285)16 33 2.5 EUREKA
(202421) 2005 UQ513(285)09 37 3.4 E CONDUCTOR
(136108) Haumea (285)12 37 0.2 SYNAPSE(IQ)
2010 VK201(286)03 37 4.6 davinci
(19308) 1996TO66 (287)09 37 4.5
2004 NT33 (289)11 37 4.4 DNA?

2009 YE7 (297)03 4 4.4 FACEBOOK
2000 CN105(300)09 4 5.0 ?
(174567) 2003 MW12 (309)12 4 3.4 LOVE
(136472) Makemake (309)09 4 -0.3 TIME
(19521) Chaos (309)11 4 4.8 LIMITS+
2010 KZ39 (310)02 4 3.9 ?
2007 XV50 (314)04 4 4.9 ?
2002 CY248(316)07 4 4.9 ?
2010 FX86 (319)02 4 4.3 KARMA
(230965) 2004 XA192(321)04 4 4.0 PEOPLE

(55565) 2002 AW197(327)07 5 3.3 MUSIC
(278361) 2007 JJ43 (332)05 5 3.2 SOUND
(119979) 2002 WC19 (334)09 5 4.9 ?
2010 RF43 (348)02 5 4.1 REFLEXOLOGY
2003 QX113(349)06 5 4.7 ?
(42301) 2001 UR163(368)06 5 4.2 IQ

(84522) 2002 TC302(410)06 6 3.9 LIGHT
(26375) 1999 DE9 (418)10 6 4.7 ?
2004 XR190(438)05 6 4.4 FAITH
(82075) 2000 YW134(445)08 6 4.8 ?

2010 TJ (504)03 7 5.0 PREDICTION
2010 RE64 (510)02 7 4.3 REINCARNATION?
(225088)2007 OR10 (553)06 7 1.9 FEAR OF DEATH
2006 QH181(557)02 7 3.8 PARANOIA

the myths are a hazard for a serious researcher, I would say. But the story surrounding the naming should be known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwar ... [quote]Due to uncertainty over whether the object would be classified as a planet or a minor planet, because different nomenclature procedures apply to these different classes of objects,[30] the decision on what to name the object had to wait until after the August 24, 2006, IAU ruling.[28] As a result, for a time the object became known to the wider public as Xena.[/quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea_(dwarf_planet)#Name

Until it was given a permanent name, the Caltech discovery team used the nickname "Santa" among themselves, as they had discovered Haumea on December 28, 2004, just after Christmas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_( ... anet)#Name

The provisional designation 2005 FY9 was given to Makemake when the discovery was made public. Before that, the discovery team used the codename "Easterbunny" for the object, because of its discovery shortly after Easter.

bjorkstrand wrote:Think about this list.

not sure what to think about it. A short story regarding its origins might put it into context.

I recognize names and even some provisional designations, so it`s not nearly so much a block of data to me, but to most people it would.

I would suggest a format that encourages concepts beyond single words for them. for example AW197 - Top down vs Bottom up, Tectonic forces, the complexity of design. And a a proposal towards naming it Tekton.

Picky. Picky. Do your own research.
Have you ever heard the words "thank you"

Jim

bjorkstrand wrote:

Picky. Picky. Do your own research.
Have you ever heard the words "thank you"

There is no need for this kind of petulant response here. As you offered no explanation or reasoning in your post above many members will have regarded it as just a cryptic download of data. I think Ariondys was just simply reflecting the reaction of many of us. Do bear in mind that many members here will not be able to relate much to stand alone numerical data.

Moreover, none of us have an entitlement to uncritical responses here. If others find our contribution useful thats great but we dont share our ideas here expecting uncritical gratitude. As this is the philosophy forum we should all expect critical examination and discussion of any ideas we put out here. I think we all benefit from the process of enquiry and debate that takes place here.

I do hope you will return here soon to offer us a more wordy and detailed explanation of what you were offering us above and how you reached the conclusions you did.

Thanks

Mark

Re: 'we can't figure it out so we have to look at something else'

Sort of I guess... I get what you mean. I`m not attempting to attribute everything to Saturn the traditional gatekeeper or Pluto the modern gatekeeper. Which I think requires too much imagination to get results.

For the most part -- don`t know where they are, who they are, what they do, when, etc

perhaps 200 in the astronomical zone I`m thinking of - becomes a sort of wild card.

Ixion, for example
http://www.zanestein.com/keywords.html#Ixion
Wheel of Fortune as in the Tarot Deck

That they become the *wild* card. A whole deck of wild cards.

see Deck of Many Things if the additional analogy helps anyone
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dmt/dmt.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm

These effects can be either beneficial or baneful.

unpredictable(less so if you know the cards/TNO beforehand) and powerful.

I`m probably drawing an arbitrary line between TNO and Centaurs and between the kind of TNO(KBO vs SDO, resonance not fitting the 2:3 paradigm)


Eris and Pluto, followed by Makemake and Haumea should catch attention because they are described as the largest (and brightest)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object

The largest known trans-Neptunian objects are Eris and Pluto, followed by Makemake and Haumea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)

In 2005, the adaptive optics team at the Keck telescopes in Hawaii carried out observations of the four brightest TNOs (Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, and Eris), using the newly commissioned laser guide star adaptive optics system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattered_ ... nian_space

Known trans-Neptunian objects are often divided into two subpopulations: the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc.

The Kuiper belt is a relatively thick torus (or "doughnut") of space, extending from about 30 to 50 AU[18] comprising two main populations of Kuiper belt objects (KBOs): the classical Kuiper-belt objects (or "cubewanos"), which lie in orbits untouched by Neptune, and the resonant Kuiper-belt objects; those which Neptune has locked into a precise orbital ratio such as 3:2

The MPC also makes a clear distinction between the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc; separating those objects in stable orbits (the Kuiper belt) from those in scattered orbits (the scattered disc and the centaurs).

you can see Eris isn`t quite like Haumea or Makemake, except in it`s Dwarf Planet-ness designation. Quaoar is probably the 3rd I`d list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_ ... elt_object
the zoom into where Quaoar and such orbit.

Ariondys wrote: james quote - Re: '''we can't figure it out so we have to look at something else'''

Sort of I guess... I get what you mean. I`m not attempting to attribute everything to Saturn the traditional gatekeeper or Pluto the modern gatekeeper. Which I think requires too much imagination to get results.

hi ariondys,

i would direct this statement 'can't figure it out so we have to look at something else' at myself and my use of midpoints or 16th harmonics as well..

i was reading earlier today the '''traditional astro rationale''' for certain aspects of orson welles life.. i see these folks doing the very same thing.. when you can't immediately explain something away astrologically in hindsight the general movement is to search for yet another technique to explain it away... see the thread from today where tom posts orson welles chart..http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7579 or, go back and notice the quandary the traditional camp have with combustion.. to be combust or not, that is the question, LOL... meanwhile note the very close 16th harmonic from welles dignified jupiter at 20 pisces 46 which is 22 degrees and 28 minutes from the midheaven, or what i refer to as a 16th harmonic aspect.. take yer pick as there is plenty of astro ideas to choose from!

astrologers have plenty of pet theories, or ancient theories to pull from and they come out most obviously when the chart is not easily explained with all the more common ways astrologers have to explain a chart!

i don't follow some of your ideas in this post, but i am reluctant to ask too many questions! okay - i will ask one - what does '200 in the astronomical zone" refer to? is that in connection with the chart where you show all the different astronomical objects?

as for tarot and zane stein - that is another door into another zone that i haven't expressed the inclination towards.. is that what ixion is? or is that another relative of chirons? i waver in using chiron.. i had a personal experience which couldn't be explained any other way then thru chiron, or my limited understanding of astrology, so i tend to want to include chiron..

fwiw my sun is within a 1 degree conjunction of eris, so you or anyone else can factor that into their case studies if they are interested in following eris, LOL..

hi bjorkstrand

i agree with mark! i find it really hard to follow your posts and what you are wanting to share.. i would find some sort of explanation a lot more engaging..

There is no research done by any of you all. You are copying stein.

I repeat do your own. I did.

Jim