Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: Octoscope giving promising statistical results

26 by dragonqueen
Papretis wrote:Hi all and sorry for the long post,

I was a frequent contributor here a few years ago. Then I stopped astrology altogether. I was fond of statistical studies and scientific view on astrology, I also studied extensively the sidereal zodiac. Then I concluded that astrology simply doesn?t work, or if it works, then possibly on the intuitive / divinatory / occult level, which I am not interested in.

Still recently I?ve been drawn to the statistical studies on astrology again. I had some of my old software left and most importantly, lots of samples from the old Astrodatabank CD-rom.

In the past years I studied especially thoroughly the houses, different house systems, first the usual ones, then whole signs, then even Indian Sripati style houses, where the houses spread on the both sides of the cusps. The results were poor. The twelve houses, let alone their rulers, simply don?t behave on the real charts as expected, not with any kind of system, not with whole signs, no tropically, no sidereally; neither statistically nor on the charts of friends or loved ones.

Also the Gauquelin results baffled me. How come that the most influential areas are located in houses that are classically considered cadent and therefore weak?

Then I found out about Cyril Fagan?s idea of Octotopos or Octoscope, an ancient(?) eight-fold house system, where the houses have the same meanings as the first eight houses of the usual 12 house system, but the last house is the house of death, and that?s it. Neat, isn?t it? Fagan suggested that these houses are located on the both sides of the cusps, Sripati style, and they run clockwise, the first house being located on the both sides of the Ascendant, the second house after that above the horizon spreading over the classical 11th house, the third house on both sides of the MC, and so on.

The problem was that there seemingly was no way to study Octoscope statistically with Jigsaw. But actually there is: Diurnal arc, divided in 40 sectors. Five sectors = one house. Fine!

But if Gauquelin was right, then the first house should not be located on the both sides of the Ascendant, but it should start on the Ascendant, clockwise. The 1st house (?the Saturn house?, if we think about the Chaldean way of associating houses with planets) would then contain the classical 12th house and half of the 11th house; the 2nd house (Jupiter) would be half of the 11th house and the 10th house; the 3rd house (Mars) would begin from the MC and contain the classical 9th house and half of the 8th house; the 4th house (the Sun) would contain half of the classical 8th house and the 7th house; the 5th house (Venus) would begin from the DC and contain the classical 6th house and half of the 5th house; the 6th house (Mercury) would contain half of the classical 5th house and the 4th house; the 7th house (the Moon) would contain the classical 3rd house and half of the 2nd house; and finally the 8th house (death) would contain half of the classical 2nd house and the 1st house.

I like the idea of the early houses dealing with physical and public things being located above the horizon, and the latter, ?deeper? houses being located below the horizon. It fits well with the diurnal / nocturnal concept. I also like the idea of planets located in the house of death being just below the horizon, invisible but ready to rise again.

I like it how the 1st and 2nd houses are on the sanguine, wet and increasingly hot quarter of the horoscope; the 3rd and 4th houses associated with fiery Mars and the Sun being on the hot and dry midday quarter; the 5th and 6th houses associated with creative and inventive Venus and Mercury being on the melancholic evening quarter; and finally the 7th (the Moon) and 8th houses located on the wet and cold night quarter symbolizing rest and inner life.

Enough for poetry, let?s do some calculating to test this idea. I have 174 different samples, mainly from AstroDatabank, but also some Gauquelin data and samples from Jigsaw. I created a huge (>48000) charts from random data for comparison and run all the 174 samples through using Jigsaw and Excel. The idea was to look, in which Octoscope house the tropical Ascendant ruler is most often located in every group. Would groups with similar themes be gathered under the same houses? Would those themes reflect the suggested house themes?

The results were convincing. The winners seem to flock in the first Octoscope house exactly as we should expect from a cardinal house (no 12th house themes here!). I give some examples: 147 conductors, 132 opera singers, 362 fine art artists, 312 composers, 622 fiction writers, 237 dancers / teachers, 293 poets, 101 critics, 107 fashion designers ? all of those artists have the Asc ruler most often in the first Octoscope house. The individual statistical effects of each group are not statistically significant as such, but together they would seem to make a pattern.

There?s also another 1st theme represented, that of a beautiful, healthy and vigorous physical body. 366 good looking people, 80 tennis players, 191 outdoors people, 83 PR people, 150 adventurers, 667 army servants, we can mention those 237 dancers also here, and 109 polices all have their Asc rulers most often in the 1st house. Again, if we looked at individual results, they might well be accidental, but all of them together? maybe not so accidental.

Let?s look at the 8th Octoscope house for comparison, which should mainly be the first house in the classical 12h house system. What do we see here, Gauquelin?s 9279 infant birth deaths, out of that group 1263 charts have the Asc ruler most often in the 8th Octoscope house, in the house of death (the expected value being 1167). Just as they say in books, except we have always thought that the area in consideration should be the first house, not the last. The effect is again not big as such, but when we find that also Gauquelin?s 622 murderers have their Asc ruler most often in the 8th Octoscope house, that kind of rises one?s hair up. What else do we find here? 322 acute delusion cases (Gauquelin), 81 nervous breakdown cases (ADB), 876 mentally deranged people (Gauquelin), 85 rapists (ADB) and 1265 schizophrenics (Gauquelin). This is beginning to sound really scary!

Fortunately we realize that there is a brighter side too: 682 people with kids more than three, 82 nurturing personalities, 33 psychiatrists, 41 US presidents (Jigsaw), 145 sports coaches / managers, 169 baseball players, 142 football players and 90 people excelling in martial arts all have their Asc rulers most often in the 8th Octoscope house. What?s the unifying theme here? Maybe sacrificing your individual aspirations to a bigger cause, be it children, your sports team, or the welfare of the United States. The classical 12th house themes, but found in the area we thought would mainly be the 1st house.

I?ll take one more, the 2nd Octoscope house because that is especially interesting. We are looking at the Jovian house of money (also friends in hindu astrology) and what do we have here? 202 people with a happy marriage (the effect is so strong that it?s actually statistically significant alone giving a p-score < 0,05: 47 charts out of 202 when the expected value is 26); 186 gracious / social people, 1002 politicians (Gauquelin), 198 social activists, 86 restaurateurs, 234 political activists, 1102 politicians (ADB), 37 trade union activists, 394 attorneys, 460 editors / publishers, 78 bigoted personalities, 134 ambitious personalities and 400 journalists. Money means politics in today?s world! Such Jovian themes: society, extroversion, influence, power.

These are not the only results that I?ve got, but this is too long a post already. Now what we need is that astrology software makers would start to include Octoscope in their programs. Programmers, please?
Hi Sari
Would it be possible to post your research or some sample charts

thanks
Anja

27 by Papretis
Anja,
I'm preparing an artricle about my study with the lists of the samples and results, example charts with a lot of planets in certain houses, etc. I'm planning to put that on the internet for free download. I hope it will be ready in a few weeks.

Thanks again for everyone for good comments. lihin wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree with you. There's one astrologer in Finland (Markku Manninen) who puts a lot of emphasis on the time of day of one?s birth. He says that people born in daytime differ crucially from people born in the night, and he uses a somewhat similar system that the Octoscope gives, expect a three-fold one (day ? afternoon & evening ? night).

In my study it was really revealing to see how the quarters of the diurnal cycle followed the sanguine (morning) ? choleric (day) ? melancholic (evening) ? phlegmatic (night) cycle and how the nature of the eight houses reflected that cycle.

lihin wrote:
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.)
I can understand Dorsan?s unwillingness to adopt an eight-fold house system because of lack of symbolic correspondences. One reason for early astrologers for adopting a 12 house system might really have been the (assumed / comfortable, etc.) correlation between the signs and houses. But with the eight houses we can use the Chaldean order of the planets as a reference point, which is used also for the twelve houses, but in a somewhat clumsy way. With the Octoscope houses it really seems to work the 1st house corresponding with Saturn, the 2nd with Jupiter, the 3rd with Mars, the 4th with the Sun, the 5th with Venus, the 6th with Mercury, the 7th with the Moon and the 8th again with Saturn.

Yes, as Mark wrote, I am female :wink: . ?papretis? is an alias and it has nothing to do with my own name. Nowadays I rather wish to remain as anonymous as possible to what comes to astrology.

lihin wrote:
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.
We?re of the same mindset. Sophia Centre has recently started to publish a new journal on the internet, Spica, http://www.astronomy-and-culture.org/jo ... 2013-1.pdf , and I was actually quite horrified to read in the first article (?Do consumers of astrological services use astrology as a method of actively seeking divine guidance? If so, what astrological services are sought for the purpose? A Pilot Study.? by Marcia Butchart), how people deeply involved in astrology use it as some kind of religious practice. If divination really is all there is in astrology, I must politely say that it will never be my cup of tea.

28 by spock
Papretis wrote:Sophia Centre has recently started to publish a new journal on the internet, Spica , and I was actually quite horrified to read in the first article (?Do consumers of astrological services use astrology as a method of actively seeking divine guidance? If so, what astrological services are sought for the purpose? A Pilot Study.? by Marcia Butchart), how people deeply involved in astrology use it as some kind of religious practice. If divination really is all there is in astrology, I must politely say that it will never be my cup of tea.
I think there's more to astrology than divination, and that astrologers who equate astrology with divination do so for one (or both) of two reasons. One, with the failure of statistics to easily justify astrology, or to justify it in its current form, it's the only way they can maintain belief in its validity. And/or two, they're particularly good at the word games that make astrology appear to be valid whether or not there exists (or the astrologer is aware of or knows the details of) an "astrological" order in nature. Regarding the first, many astrologers naively believed that with the advent of statistics in astrology the scientific world would at last be made to see that we astrologers were right all along, that astrology works. Many of those same, science-oriented astrologers also believed that there would be a revolution in science such that it would then be possible to understand why astrology works. But it seems to me this kind of thinking puts the cart before the horse. Rather than wondering what the world would have to be like in order for something like astrology to exist, we should wonder what astrology would have to be like in order to exist in the world. It's not science but astrology itself that needs to be revolutionized.

As for the verbal gymnastics characteristic of the way astrology is normally done, which is de facto a magical, divinatory approach even if we don't all recognize it as such, that too is addressed in the article, After Symbolism, that I cited in my earlier post. Geoffrey Cornelius in The Moment of Astrology rightly recognizes that astrology in its present form is a kind of divination, but errs in supposing that's all it can be. It doesn't occur to him that astrology needs to change in fundamental ways in order not only to fit more rigorous observations and tests but also to conceptually make sense as the sort of thing that can exist in the world. It doesn't occur to divination-oriented astrologers (or to astrologers in general for that matter) that a post-divinatory, post-magical astrology can even exist. In a way it's a failure of imagination. And the Sophia Centre is, if I'm not mistaken, strongly influenced if not controlled by Cornelius and other like-minded astrologers who are part of a divinatory movement in England. If so I'd have to say that the kind of astrology and "research" supported by the Sophia Centre isn't my cup of tea either.
Last edited by spock on Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Article: After Symbolism

29 by spock
Mark wrote: 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.

Yes, that would be desirable. Anyone doing so, however, would need to be as sophisticated as Gauquelin in determining how often Mars or another planet should be in a given area if it's randomly distributed. For Mars especially being randomly distributed doesn't mean being evenly distributed, because Mars is conjunct more often than opposite the Sun, and more people tend to be born just before dawn than at other times. Therefore Mars is normally near the Asc more often than other places, and that needs to be taken into account before we can say that a particular distribution, for instance Mars for eminent athletes, is actually nonrandom. Both supporters and critics have underestimated Gauquelin's brilliance in determining the correct baseline random distributions against which to compare the distributions of the different eminent professionals groups.
Mark wrote: 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.

It makes more sense conceptually, because it projects the birthplace onto the ecliptic in the same way, along lines (actually, planes) perpendicular to the ecliptic, that the planets are projected. Although the original coinage of the term Nonagesimal was based on it being a certain angular distance from the ASC, from the perspective that the birthplace/native is the primary factor it makes more sense to see the ASC as a derivative that's a certain angular distance from the Nonagesimal. Hence my reference to it as an aspect to the birthplace, and to its projection onto the ecliptic, and not as a primary factor in and of itself. From my perspective saying that a transiting planet is "on the ASC" of a person's chart is simply another way of saying it's closing square that person's natal place..

But the acid test, does the NG work better than the MC, would require recalculating the Gauquelin zones using the NG rather than the MC. Since the MC on average is the same distance from the ASC as the NG, even the wrong one would be expected to generate peaks such as Gauquelin found. But if the NG is the more valid way to determine where the person is zodiacally, the upper peak should be even higher and more distinct than the one Gauquelin found. As I think Papretis noted in one of her posts, any imprecision, of birthtimes or in this case of reference points, should smear out any lumpiness in the distribution and flatten the peaks. More accurate data and/or a more accurate reference point should result in taller and narrower peaks, i.e., a narrower orb of effect.

You also mentioned Michael Wackford's article on Skyscript on global horoscopes:
... 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!
Very interesting. I'll have to read that article. He is of course correct except that the NG doesn't have to be seen as a house cusp. (I personally don't accept the validity of interpretive boxes such as signs and houses.) It should also be added that the MC rather than the NG might be the legitimate ecliptic longitude of the birthplace/native, even though the NG at present seems to me conceptually more logical.
Mark wrote: 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!
Is that still your intention? I'd think that the Philosophy & Science section of this forum would be a more relevant place for it.
Article: After Symbolism

30 by spock
Mark wrote: 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.
Just to clarify, if the ASC is, as I suspect, the center of the effect in accurately timed charts with no lateness factor, and is such because it's the point 90? from the birthplace/person, then "both sides of an angle" would equal the applying and separating parts of the aspect with precisely on the angle being partile. Ditto for the DSC, albeit there are additional factors to consider that I'm not going to go into here. Then the question, how far from the angle in each direction does the effect peter out? is tantamount to asking what the orb of effect is. It almost certainly isn't a full 30? in either direction, might well be less than 10?, and probably shouldn't automatically be assumed to be the same distance applying as separating. You may have taken some or all of the preceding into account, but I thought it might be good to spell it out.
Last edited by spock on Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Article: After Symbolism

31 by Mark
Spock wrote:
Is that still your intention? I'd think that the Philosophy & Science section of this forum would be a more relevant place for it.
I am considering this subject in a number of ways not just in philosophical terms. Firstly, I want to look at the subject historically in terms of the the possible use of the zenith (nonagesimil) in some ancient astrological sources.

I feel the Traditional forum is really much better for that kind of discussion. Quite simply that forum has a higher participation rate and the quota of historically well informed members who check in there is at its highest.

Secondly, I also want to discuss the topic practically, with other astrologers in terms of experience working with with this point. I fully take your point that that can all be brought back to the ASC as simply a square aspect. This isn't inconsistent with what some ancient astrologers wrote. However, I think that kind of discussion belongs better on the General and Nativities forum.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

32 by james_m
spock wrote: I think there's more to astrology than divination, and that astrologers who equate astrology with divination do so for one (or both) of two reasons. ...


Geoffrey Cornelius in The Moment of Astrology rightly recognizes that astrology in its present form is a kind of divination, but errs in supposing that's all it can be. It doesn't occur to him that astrology needs to change in fundamental ways in order not only to fit more rigorous observations and tests but also to conceptually make sense as the sort of thing that can exist in the world. It doesn't occur to divination-oriented astrologers (or to astrologers in general for that matter) that a post-divinatory, post-magical astrology can even exist. In a way it's a failure of imagination.......
hi dale,

i haven't read your article in full yet, but i will. you raise interesting issues that i believe astrologers tend to generally avoid or ignore.

i don't know that cornelius only wants astrology to be divination, so much as he would like to steer it back to what i think he believes it's roots are. this might be seen as a good way to avoid the scientific emphasis of our worldview since the 1700's( or even all the way back to ptolemy and his tetrabiblios) which has essentially overthrown a particular astrological outlook and approach which instead demands that everything must be scientifically valid in order to be taken seriously..

"signs verses causes" is one of the ways that cornelius encourages one to consider astrology.. do we look at astrology as omen(signs) based, or do with look at it with a scientific outlook where there must be an astrological cause, which will equate with any number of conclusions astrologers regularly make..

i don't think cornelius is trying to close the door on a more scientific approach to astrology, but moving astrology back in a direction that it can have relevance in an immediate manner. he seems to want to embrace the idea of developing a 'sense of the sacred' in life.. these are my words. when everything including astrology becomes a dry calculated exercise it can appear to take away a soulful or spiritual relevance that many people today have a need for.. again - these are my thoughts and words. i will try to get round to reading your full article over the weekend.

cheers james

33 by Mark
Hello Dale,

Geoffrey Cornelius is not directly involved in the Sophia Centre. Instead he is the chief academic leading the MA in the Cultural Study of Cosmology and Divination at the University of Kent.

Its actually Nicholas Campion who is the driving force behind the The MA in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology (CAA) which is taught distance-learning, on-line through the Sophia Centre for the Study of Cosmology in Culture.The course is now run through The University of Wales, Trinity St David.

http://www.trinitysaintdavid.ac.uk/en/sophia/

However, I dont deny Geoffrey Cornelius has had a substantial impact on the astrological community here in Britain through his book The Moment of Astrology.

If you want to critique the divinatory approach to astrology I personally think it would fit better in a thread specifically devoted to that subject. I do think this is a healthy debate to be having but I fear your comments are rather buried so far into this thread. Still, its your decision if you want to continue commenting here or open a new thread.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

34 by dragonqueen
Papretis wrote:Hi Mark and James,

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.
Hi Sari

Can you provide a few charts of evil people with Saturn in 1st or 3rd sector?
I was surprised about that one
thanks

35 by Mark
Dragon Queen wrote:
Hi Sari

Can you provide a few charts of evil people with Saturn in 1st or 3rd sector?
I was surprised about that one
thanks
Why do you think this would prove anything? There must be lots of people -good, bad and indifferent with Saturn in all 4 sectors. Keep in mind Paperetis has been analysing Gauquelin's data containing literally thousands of charts. Its not the kind of research that conveniently lends itself to being reduced to just a few natal examples. You could argue just about anything on such logic but it would have no statistical validity. What research like this is trying to establish is a statistically significant correlation. That is a long way from assuming everyone or even most people will have a planet in a particular sector. We are talking about a relatively subtle correlation here.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

36 by Papretis
Hi all and thanks again for an enjoyable discussion.

Dale, I read your article ?After Symbolism?. Of course you had excellent points there. You also had some really good observations about the transits of Mars and Saturn. I especially liked the way you wrote about how Saturn loosened Freud?s existing conceptual commitments ? loosened, not tightened, as a thoroughly modern astrologer might think; Saturn as the traditional significator of decay and disintegration. I also liked how you criticized our certainty about the interpretation of the outer planets. As you probably know, Sue Ward has written a good paper on this subject http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/p ... urnepl.htm .

But I?m really getting out of the topic. I would like to make an update and that is that before finishing my paper on the results of the study at hand I decided to settle the zodiac question for myself for good. I wanted to be sure that the tropical zodiac is the one that pays off in further studies. I thought that the tropical zodiac will be the winner, but I just wanted to be sure of it.

So I went through the same 180+ groups (with Jigsaw and Excel it?s not as slow or tedious as it sounds) and looked for the most frequent Ascendant ruler in each group. Because the traditional rulers overlap (people ruled sidereally by Mars are most often ruled tropically by Venus and Jupiter and so on), only one of the zodiacs should give clear and logical, unconfused results.

And to my surprise it was the sidereal zodiac after all. Even the planetary polarities were visible with the sidereal Ascendant rulers. Mars: passion and confrontation <--> Venus: sensibility, intelligence and conciliation; Mercury: physical and mental action, practicality and worldliness <--> Jupiter: quietness, spirituality and otherworldliness (I know that this doesn?t align with modern Jupiter as the planet of excess and extraversion, but I think this modern interpretation stems mainly from tropical Sagittarius = sidereal Scorpio ruled by Mars); the Sun and the Moon: the queen and the king, uniqueness, leadership, centre of attention <--> Saturn: mass mentality, working class, repetition, perseverance.

The most curious and provocative polarity emerged with the Sun and the Moon: the Hellenistic notion of the Sun as Spirit and the Moon as Matter becomes really apprehensible on the sidereal zodiac, but so that the Sun emerges as the fragile, sensitive, feminine Princess and the Moon as the the strong, physical, protective, masculine King. That would change the masculine / feminine polarities of all the signs on the sidereal zodiac.

So I?ll write a paper of this study first. I?ll put the link here on the Skyscript forum for free download as a new topic, when the paper is ready.

I have already looked at the sidereal Ascendant rulers in Octoscope houses, and confusingly now it seems that the faganesque ?Ascendant as the center of the 1st house? type Octoscope works better after all. It needs further studies.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy & Science”