Hi Mark and James,
thank you for your very interesting and thoughtful posts. I happen to have got original Gauquelin data from an astrologer, I think it was here in Skyscript that someone contacted me a few years ago when I was doing this kind of studies last time. The data is also on the C.U.R.A. site.

I just don?t understand how you can be reaching a different conclusion from Gauquelin on essentially the same data.

Me neither. I cannot understand, how Gauquelin decided to include the previous sector into the power zone, when his data doesn?t seem to support it. But I leave open the possibility that there?s something that I simply don?t know.

About the methods Gauquelin found valid: I don?t know if Gauquelin studied rulerships and dignities at all, at least I haven?t seen any evidence of that. That would leave their validity open. In the study I?ve presented here the Ascendant rulers in (Octoscope) houses would seem to give good results. That would validate both signs and (traditional) rulerships. If rulerships are valid, then possibly detrimets are too.

In the past few days I?ve gone through the same 174 samples I used in the Octoscope study and looked for samples that have certain planets in the 1st or the 3rd Octoscope house, that is, in the Gauquelin plus zones, in order to find out about the nature of the planets like the Gauquelins did. It has given some results, and though the results are maybe not as clear as in the Octoscope study, they go along similar lines than with Gauquelin.

The Moon would seem to do with writing and also somewhat with care (Kids more than three, nurses, psychiatrists).

As with Gauquelin, the Sun doesn?t show clearly any specific significations, but because of its nature as the center and power supplier of the solar system, its role may be as a more general energy source.

Mercury might have some connection with calculating practicality (economists, private personalities, public officers, producers, outdoor people, thieves - the traditional signification of Mercury!).

Venus is prominent with people dealing with beauty and popularity (the US presidents ? 19 out of 41 having Venus in the 1st or 3rd Octoscope house, sex symbols, architects, social workers, football players, sport coaches / managers, psychologists, fashion designers, song writers, critics, music teachers).

Mars shows up with Gauquelin?s sportsmen (of course), but also with Gauquelin?s scientists and military men, with people served in the army (from AstroDatabank), polices and executed people.

Jupiter is strong in the charts of military men (Gauquelin, along with Mars), actors, politicians (Gauquelin), NASA astronauts, adventurers / explorers, military pilots (Gauquelin), photographers and textbook writers. Classical Jovian expansion themes.

Saturn is a real malefic, showing prominence in the charts of violent criminals, psychotic people, bigoted personalities, nervous breakdown cases, assaulters, people with prison sentences and rapists.

The Nodal Axis would seem to have something to do with having an intelligent and/ or intuitive mind (North Node) versus being a simpleton or having a distorted mind (South Node).

I also went through some asteroids and the outer planets. A bit surprisingly, the most common asteroids (Vesta, Pallas, Juno, Ceres) would seem to give some results along with Uranus, but Neptune and Pluto give nothing very meaningful.

Uranus might signify intelligence and high education (doctors, politicians, public officers, highly educated people, attorneys, teachers, government empolyees, social workers, journalists). I noted a few years ago that the Uranus transits through the signs seem to correlate with trends in popular music, and Uranus is frequently found in the power zones of pop singers and song writers.

But Neptune and Pluto give such variable collection of samples that you cannot pull anything meaningful out of them. It may be because of them moving so slowly that with a certain age cohort they are always more frequently in certain houses (because of the variable rising times of the ascending signs), so the random control data should be composed very carefully matching the birth years of a sample. I actually tried to do that with the Gauquelin data, but it didn?t help.

The other option is that they simply don?t have any astrological significance! In any case I think Neptune and Pluto are given far too much emphasis in chart interpretation.

What about Vesta, Pallas, Juno and Ceres then?
- Vesta: business, especially business having to do with home and cooking (restaurateurs, real estate agents, business owners, rich people).
- Pallas: science (Gauquelin?s scientists, clerics / secretaries, Nobel Prize winners, mathematicians, engineers, military pilots, researchers, eccentrics, private people).
- Juno: metaphysical things (metaphysical writers, people with mystical experiences, people with metaphysical world view, religious / spiritual writers, religious leaders, western ecclesiastics).
- Ceres: music (instrumentalists, jazz musicians, conductors, composers, critics).

James, though I would like to see astrology getting accepted in scientific circles, unfortunately I?m too weak and academically uneducated to make that happen by myself . But what really interests me is to find astrological techniques and significations that really work on large amounts of charts and thus for example in blind readings. I love it when I look at the charts of my friends, family members and celebrities and see things that I?ve found in these studied working in single charts.

One example: Roy Orbison (23rd April 1936 at 3.50 PM Vernon, Texas). He had his Asc and MC ruler Mercury in the 3rd Octoscope house along with the Sun, Moon and Mars. First I was baffled: the 3rd house should be about travel, vehicles, machines, technics, etc. ? what did Orbison have to do with those things? Until I read in Wikipedia:

Orbison was fascinated with machines. He was famous for following a car that he liked on sight, and making the driver an offer on the spot. He had a collection worthy of a museum by the late 1960s. He and Claudette shared a love for motorcycles; she had grown up around them, but Orbison claimed Elvis Presley had introduced him to motorcycles. However, tragedy struck on June 6, 1966, when Orbison and Claudette were riding home from Bristol, Tennessee. She was struck by a semi-trailer truck and died instantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison

This is simply mind-boggling.

Another example (help me, I cannot stop, if I start!): in the statistical study the 7th Octoscope house didn?t show any specific emphasis on the classical 7th house meaning of marriage, but on single charts things change.

Let?s take Cary Grant (18th January 1904 at 1.07 AM, Bristol, England) and Elizabeth Taylor (27th February 1932 at 2 AM, Golders Green, England), both actors and classic heart breakers of the Hollywood golden era. Grand was married five times, Taylor notoriously eight times with seven husbands. Grant had his Asc ruler Venus, MC ruler Sun along with Mercury and the Moon in the 7th Octoscope house. Taylor had her Sun, Mercury, Mars and North Node in the 7th house.

This may be too creative for the tastes of many of you, but if I rectify the whole hour birth time of Taylor 22 minutes backwards to 1.38 AM, then Saturn joins the existing 7th house planets, the 7th house Mercury becomes the MC ruler and the new 7th house ruler Jupiter is found in the 3rd house, the possible significator of fame and career (because of the MC).

In Yoko Ono?s chart (18th February 1933 at 8.30 PM, Tokyo, Japan) the Asc ruler Venus and the 7th house ruler Saturn conjunct together in the 6th house of eccentricity and inventiveness = Yoko and John Lennon met at her experimental art exhibition, and since that they were inseparable until once she initiated a temporal separation (Venus is separating from Saturn). Also the MC ruler Moon is found in the 7th house of marriage = her fame comes from first and foremost from her marriage.

Papretis wrote:

Mars shows up with Gauquelin?s sportsmen (of course), but also with Gauquelin?s scientists and military men, with people served in the army (from AstroDatabank), polices and executed people.

Saturn is a real malefic, showing prominence in the charts of violent criminals, psychotic people, bigoted personalities, nervous breakdown cases, assaulters, people with prison sentences and rapists.

Hello Sari,

However, I think Gauquelin and subsequent research confirmed a connection between Saturn and scientists too.

Have you read Gauquelin's book 'Spheres of Destiny': Your Personality and the Planets? You can still pick up a used copy dirt cheap on Amazon. In the book he tries to offer a more popular presentation of his research in terms of 'planetary types'. He sets out his reasons why the he sees the Saturnian type as matching those into science. He also follows the astrological idea of key words for each type.

Gauquelin suggests that sometimes you get a personality type in a field dominated by another planetary type. For example Einstein was a Jupiter type in the Saturnian field of science. Equally, Richard Nixon was a Saturnian type in the Jupiter dominated field of politics.

Incidentally, this excellent article updates the idea of Gauquelin plus zones in light of the latest research. It suggests the plus zones were smaller than Gauquelin originally suggested.

In the article below David Cochrane states:

Another consideration in analyzing the diurnal position of planets is the method for measuring the planet position in the diurnal cycle. Gauquelin used a method that we are referring to as Placidian arcs. Astrologers typically project planet positions onto the ecliptic plane and the resulting positions are known as ecliptic positions or zodiac longitude positions. Less used by astrologers but more often used by astronomers are positions projected on the equatorial plane and these positions are known as right ascension positions. After producing graphs in longitude and right ascension measured from both the rising point and the culminating point and comparing these to various golden ratio positions, only the zodiac longitude positions appeared to provide a good correspondence with the peaks and troughs in the graph of Mars for sports champions.

http://www.astrosoftware.com/Reassessme ... Effect.htm

I have taken the liberty of displaying this table used in the article:
Mark

Hello Sari,

Your proposal to work clockwise or diurnally seems to reflect the similar conclusions of several French writers influenced by the Gauquelin research. I have already provided links to the paper by Patrice Guinard and the book by Dorsan.

Michel Gauquelin's wife Francoise was interested in astrology. She suggested that the Greek astrological tradition (especially Ptolemy) went down a dead end in moving away from the focus on the diurnal movement of planets in Babylonian astrology. Hence a planet rising would be seen as in a position of power rather than weakness prior to the Greek conceptualisation of houses.

Here is a link to Francoise Gauquelin's paper from 1985 entitled ''The Greek Error or Return to Babylon''

http://cura.free.fr/xxv/24app3-3.html

Mark

Hi Mark,
thank you again for interesting references. I'll read the article you mentioned.

Yes, I've read "Spheres of Destiny" a few years ago. A most interesting book, and one of those that furthered my ponderings about the nature of planets. When one is using a sidereal zodiac (like did at a few points in the past), one has to think and even seriously question the nature of the planets, if one wants to make rulerships to fit with what one observes about the signs. So you can belive that I?ve toggled with the planetary symbolism.

The table you put here confirms nicely that Jupiter is prominent both in soldier's and politician's charts, and Mars is prominent both in sportsmen's and scientist's charts.

(Edited: removed some theoretical ponderings that proved erroneous at a closer look.)

Papretis wrote:

thank you again for interesting references. I'll read the article you mentioned.

Actually I need to thank you for the article link! I was looking for old Skyscript discussions on the Gauquelin data and found this thread from 2005 which you participated in:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 0f89a8e544

Mark

Mark wrote:
http://www.astrosoftware.com/Reassessme ... Effect.htm

Mark

interesting link mark. i hadn't read that before.. i like an attempt at a tie in to the golden ratio.. that was interesting..

"To summarize, there are four golden ratio axes according to Landscheidt and these are:

42.5 and 222.5: major golden ratio of 360 degrees
137.5 and 317.5: minor golden ratio of 360 degrees
111.2 and 291.2: major golden ratio of 180 degrees
68.8 and 248.8: minor golden ratio of 180 degrees"

the first 4 numbers are quite close to the semisquare and sesquisquare aspects.. the last 4 are directly connected to my favourite 16th harmonic aspect - 22.5 degree aspect with a 1 degree orb.. essentially all these numbers are 8th or 16th harmonic numbers with a 1 to 2 degree orb.

"Gauquelin was also inclined to reanalyze the data with an interest in personality traits rather than a more superficial association of a profession with the planet."

i was unaware of this statement that i picked up in the article as well. that too is quite revealing as he opted to chose data from those who fit the personality traits rather then the profession only..

Thanks to Mr Papretis for attempting to test the clockwise octotopus system statistically. Indeed, Monsieur Michel Gauquelin's findings were somewhat embarrassing for astrologers who often were as much or more critical of his work than aggressive, dogmatic sceptics.

Astrology and astronomy were not separated until relatively recently. Astrology attempts to correlate celestial with terrestrial phenomena. It was understood by nearly all astrologers as a science until the 19th century CE.

The French astrologer-author Monsieur Daniel Verney in Fondements et Avenir de l'Astrologie pointed out that Gauquelin's findings concerned visible, notorious persons, not 'nobodies'. This, according to M. Verney, corresponds to the importance of the outer 'social' planets in the correlations found and with S?l?n? who represented the public. Gauquelin found some comparatively weak correlations for Aphodit?, none for Herm?s (mostly invisible), nor for the Great H?lios (too visible, blinding?) nor for planets beyond Kronos (invisible).

Mr John Addey found that some of Gauquelin's findings combined certain waves round the zodiac that are clearer when separated. Mr Addey, however, was apparently more interested in integrating his astrological studies into neo-Platonic philosophy than in painstaking statistical research. Prof. Dr. Percy Seymour, in addition to waves, included magnetic, plasm and light phenomena is his works, also, like Gauquelin's, mostly ignored by astrologers.

Monsieur Jacques Dorsan wrote a lengthy book explaining a 12-house clockwise system and has been followed in this by some other French astrologers. He did not find an 8-house system convenient due to its lacking correspondences between signs and houses. (Beware: the English translation currently available does NOT faithfully reproduce the original French.)

IF one prefers to consider astrology a natural science rather than a 'mantic science' [sic], THEN there is plenty of research work to do by Mr Papretis and others duly qualified. To speculate and add a few positively selected charts by way of anecdotal evidence is certainly the easier road. One might call to mind that statistical research and calculations can show probabilities but no absolute verities. Even if a sample revealed a probability of 1 or 0, subsequent samples might show less or more. There is always a margin of error due to the impossibility of including an indefinite amount (ad infinitum) of data. Philosophers of the sceptical school recommended that one 'suspend judgement'.

In my humble opinion those who believe they might discover the Great Astrological Truth (or any other) in some ancient manuscripts revealed to and/ or by Seers may be closer to some Hollywood films than to reality. But, like others, they are free to believe what they like and to propose whatever astrology they prefer.

Best regards,

lihin

Nice discussion. I appreciate Papretis' sincere and strenuous efforts to make sense of astrology (and have enjoyed as well the thoughtful responses to his initial post). As one who adheres to the notion of doubt as an examiner, I also appreciate and sympathize with his difficulty in maintaining belief in astrology. To honestly be aware of and bothered by problems with one's belief system is to constantly skate on the edge of unbelief. Yet I am not sure it's possible to discover a more empirically and conceptually adequate astrology in the absence of adherent truth seekers who possess this mentality.

There are I think several ways to pursue knowledge of a kind of natural order that could be termed "astrological" (as per my article After Symbolism on Patrice Guinard's CURA website) and Gauquelin-type research is one of them. That research and its implications are, however, regularly misconstrued even by astrologers who recognize its importance and wish to extend the Gauquelin achievement. I hope it won't be taken amiss if I suggest that such misconceptions are present in this discussion, as I wish only, by my own efforts and by supporting the efforts of like-minded researchers, to contribute to bringing a truer and more real astrology into the light of day.

Papretis says he "didn?t know that Gauquelin flirted a bit with [the] Octoscope in the 80/90?s." To the best of my knowledge he didn't. Papretis apparently has in mind Mark's reference to Patrice's "conclusion that Gauquelin proposed a simple eightfold division." But Patrice doesn't say that in the quotation in Mark's post. The key phrase is "the only really valid discovery, made unawares [my emphasis], namely: the presence in the global curves of the eight astrological houses." What Patrice is saying, it seems to me, is that he sees something in the Gauquelin results that the Gauquelins themselves overlooked. I suspect what he means is that there are four areas of the chart termed plus zones and four areas in between. Ergo, eight areas in all, and therefore tacitly an Octoscope.

I think Patrice is mistaken, and that the notion that the Gauquelin work says anything at all about houses is mistaken. Whether there are eight or twelve houses, running clockwise or counterclockwise, beginning at the Asc or at some point prior to the Asc is all beside the point, at least insofar as the Gauquelin work is concerned. The definitive beginning and ending of plus zones makes them look at first glance like houses, but that's an artifact of the statistical procedure. It requires defined areas within which we can definitively say how often Mars should appear and how often it actually does. The size of the plus zones is in essence a rough guess of the size of the orb of effect. Because Gauquelin of necessity used bounded sectors and plus zones doesn't mean the Mars effect itself is sharply bounded and uniform within those boundaries. More to the point, If a plus zone were a house there would be eight or twelve of them with eight or twelve different effects. Instead we have a single effect present when Mars is in a plus zone and absent when it isn't. Binary, on or off effects are indicative of aspects, not interpretive boxes like signs or houses. The Gauquelin work shows the effects of aspects, not house positions.

Dean's discussion of the Gauquelin work in Recent Advances in Natal Astrology appears to support this conclusion. Although uncertain of the reference point ? "The MC may be merely a harmonic of the Rising Point or vice versa . . ." ? he concludes that "the most important aspects are conjunction and opposition the Rising Point or MC (or at least to a position about ten degrees past those points . . .)." Thinking that the aspects are phase shifted about 10? doesn't deter him from seeing them as aspects. If an effect is strongest and the aspect presumably partile at 10?, 100?, 190? and 270? from a reference point, they're still aspects and not interpretive boxes.

However, a phase shift isn't the only possible explanation for the peaks being slightly past the angles. Dean notes, "During a birth the attention of those involved is usually anywhere but on the clock. After the delivery various duties have to be attended to. In Europe the responsibility for recording the birth usually falls on the father: in the early days he was prohibited from the delivery room and therefore had to rely on secondhand information. Hence it is plausible that the registered birth time should tend to be too late." My own birth is a case in point. It was at home, there was a clock on the wall opposite the foot of the bed that was corrected daily (my grandmother ran a country store to which the house was attached), my mother was comfortable, awake and watching the clock (I was her firstborn) and clearly remembered the time: 12:55 am. But my birth certificate shows 1:05 am, undoubtedly for the reasons given above. Dean notes that an average lateness factor of 15-30 minutes would put the peaks exactly on the angles.

But Dean adds, "However, this intriguing explanation is not supported by direct evidence," noting that Francoise Gauquelin compared over 10,000 registered times with hospital records and found a low error rate, and when large errors did occur they were as likely to be before the hospital time as after it. I see two problems with this argument. One, the latter times were from the Paris area 1923-30. Most of the subjects used in the eminent professionals experiments, on the other hand, were born from 1850-1910, most of them not in the Paris area, probably a great many of them not in hospitals. Two, and this is the more decisive point, at most F. Gauquelin's test showed, and this only for hospital births in a later time period, that the clerks with whom the births were registered didn't systematically write down a time later than the one they were given. It doesn't mean there wasn't an average lateness in the times reported to them. No doubt my own birth certificate accurately reflects the time observed by the doctor who delivered me. It was his observation that was in error. Dean's phrase "not supported by direct evidence" is misleading because F. Gauquelin tested the least likely source of error. More likely sources of error are the time initially being observed erroneously (e.g., by the doctor who delivered me), or the person registering the birth giving the registrar a time that didn't match the initially observed time. (Dean himself, in The Gauquelin work 2: Opinions, artifacts, puzzles, suggests that the latter has been a significant source of error, although he's making a different point than I am here.) It seems to me an average lateness factor remains a viable and indeed likely possibility.

An obvious question at this point is, what is Mars in aspect to? Dean seems to think it's either the MC or the Rising Point. I suggest that if Mars in your chart is in a plus zone it's in hard-angle aspect to you, more specifically to where you were at the moment of birth. We don't think of it as an aspectable factor because we erect a framework around it, call it a house system, and see a set of interpretive boxes containing planets and through which transiting and progressed planets move. But just as planets move in a circle relative to the earth, with positions along the ecliptic even though they're most of the time not on it, so too does a point on the earth's surface not exactly on a pole move in a circle, carried by the earth's spin, and so too can its position be stated in terms of the ecliptic even though it's not on it. We can specify its ecliptic position in two ways. If we draw a line from the birthplace along a geographic meridian, the point where it crosses the ecliptic is the MC. If we draw that line along an ecliptic meridian, perpendicular to the ecliptic, the point where it crosses the ecliptic is the Nonagesimal (NG). The Asc and Dsc are 90? spherically from the birthplace, and 90? zodiacally from the NG. They're aspects, not primary reference points. The primary reference point is your position at the moment of birth.

I'm going to stop here for the moment. It's taken me about a week to write this much. I'll continue with another post analyzing Papretis' research (to the extent that it can be analyzed given the details he's shared so far), describing the Gauquelin results more fully, and suggesting how experimentalists (i.e., statisticians) can most effectively clarify, extend, and augment them in our efforts to determine what's astrologically "true" in what ways.

Lihin/Spock,

Just to clarify Papretis is female.

regards

Mark

Spock wrote:

......the notion that the Gauquelin work says anything at all about houses is mistaken. Whether there are eight or twelve houses, running clockwise or counterclockwise, beginning at the Asc or at some point prior to the Asc is all beside the point, at least insofar as the Gauquelin work is concerned. The definitive beginning and ending of plus zones makes them look at first glance like houses, but that's an artifact of the statistical procedure. It requires defined areas within which we can definitively say how often Mars should appear and how often it actually does. The size of the plus zones is in essence a rough guess of the size of the orb of effect. Because Gauquelin of necessity used bounded sectors and plus zones doesn't mean the Mars effect itself is sharply bounded and uniform within those boundaries. More to the point, If a plus zone were a house there would be eight or twelve of them with eight or twelve different effects. Instead we have a single effect present when Mars is in a plus zone and absent when it isn't. Binary, on or off effects are indicative of aspects, not interpretive boxes like signs or houses. The Gauquelin work shows the effects of aspects, not house positions.

This is an excellent point and very well put. I had been thinking along these lines myself. The Gauquelin data seems to be informing us about planetary power in any the plus zones but I struggle to see how we can draw separate topical meaning from them as Papretis suggests.

On the other hand the research does provide interesting data on the traditional astrological idea of angularity. For astrologers utilising dynamical systems to assess planetary strength the Gauquelin research give a clear steer that both sides of an angle can be linked to power/eminence. Hence dynamical systems that facilitate this seem more promising.

Spock wrote:

It seems to me an average lateness factor remains a viable and indeed likely possibility.

Another excellent point. The heavy focus of Gauquelin plus zones behind the angles may be a reflection of the time delay allowing planets to disproportionately pass diurnally behind the angles. The possibility that the plus zones contain a statistical artifact is certainly a possibility.

I know here is Scotland birth times are now recorded much more accurately now than in the past and times are rounded off to the nearest 5 minutes rather than the 15 minutes round off of my generational cohort. Its an awesome task but collecting a new collection of accurately timed nativities outside of Gauquelin seems necessary.

Spock wrote:

If we draw that line along an ecliptic meridian, perpendicular to the ecliptic, the point where it crosses the ecliptic is the Nonagesimal (NG). The Asc and Dsc are 90? spherically from the birthplace, and 90? zodiacally from the NG. They're aspects, not primary reference points. The primary reference point is your position at the moment of birth.

Very interesting. I had always assumed the Gauquelin plus zone above the horizon were picking up the MC. but you seem to be suggesting instead it is proximity to the Nonagesimal which is the point squaring the ASC zodically. It corresponds to the equal house 10th cusp.

I have taken this definition from Michael Wackford's article on Global Horoscopes here on Skyscript:

... Equal House 10th, otherwise known as the Ecliptic Zenith or Nonagesimal. This cusp, which is always the point of the ecliptic highest in the local sky, is the ecliptic point closest to the celestial position of the birthplace ( = the celestial zenith). Any Equal House 10th cusp therefore represents the ecliptic longitude of the birthplace - or even that of the native!

Just to recap the The midheaven (MC)? is the part of the part of the ecliptic that corresponds to the highest point in a celestial object's apparent daily traverse of the visible sky, midway between its ascension on the eastern?horizon?and descension on the western horizon.

The midheaven does not represent the point immediately overhead (our local?zenith), but the point at which that meridian intersects with the?ecliptic.

I know astrologers often overuse the term synchronicity. Still, your focus on the Nonagesimal is quite a coincidence. I have checking out the sparse astrological references to this point on the internet for the last day or so and intended to create a thread on this topic in the General forum!

Mark

hi spock,

welcome to skyscript!

i especially liked your post and what you had to say. i also note astrologers emphasis on house systems as opposed to some of the other ways of getting insight into a chart, such as aspects. it is an interesting thought to consider how aspect relationships to the angles instead of various house system positions might produce different results.

i especially liked your comments in the opening paragraph copied below..

spock wrote:As one who adheres to the notion of doubt as an examiner, I also appreciate and sympathize with his difficulty in maintaining belief in astrology. To honestly be aware of and bothered by problems with one's belief system is to constantly skate on the edge of unbelief. Yet I am not sure it's possible to discover a more empirically and conceptually adequate astrology in the absence of adherent truth seekers who possess this mentality.

Good morning,

Dr. Patrice Guinard, alas - perhaps in deference to the general academic, astrology-adverse environment - largely restricted astrology to human psychology in her work on the clockwise octotopus. In my humble opinion Mr Cyril Fagan's basic interpretations of the eight clockwise places are more suitable for research.

The basic correspondence of a solar day to a life cycle is rather evident to many if not most people, also to non-astrologers. Asc -> sprout, MC -> fully developed plant, Desc -> death, IC -> dormant seed. Much if not most modern astrology, however, has attached more importance to the secondary counter-clockwise zodiacal cycle even to the extent of largely ignoring primary motion.

Of course, one can make a good case for the night rather than the day. Celestial phenomena are largely obscured by H?lios during the day. Humans, diurnal by nature, tend to assign relatively little importance to the Night.

Best regards,

lihin

PS Apologies to Ms Papretis for the gender error, avoidable if i had properly considered the final 'is' in Greek, masculine being 'os'.