mark,

thanks for correcting me on the passing comment on noel tyls huge solar arc theory book.. i don't have it anymore and was going on memory, but i think you are correct regarding the selective acknowledgement historical sources. i also have the gargantuan book that tom mentions which i got cheap. i also have the 1994 edition which i was sure he would say something relevant in over the course of 873 pages, however i feel asleep trying to slog thru it, lol.. not the first time!

looking at it now, the nodal axis section runs from page 49 to 64..
he gives a brief historical account and makes this comment on the top of page 50."I see the Lunar Nodal axis as lunar symbolism in relation to the Sun. I see the process of the feminine meeting the masculine, taking in the Sun's light and transmitting it further, ingesting the seed and putting forth the fruit. I see maternal influence. I see the potential for a knot of complication through the mother, or, indeed, an amalgamation of strengths through maternal influence."

he then goes on to work thru many examples with not only aspects central, but also placidus house positions central to the interpretations.

i will see if i can find some time to read over the section and get back with any additional comments for others here. maybe tom can too? i have a busy week ahead.

James wrote:

he then goes on to work thru many examples with not only aspects central, but also placidus house positions central to the interpretations.

Hi James,

That seems perfectly fair enough to me if that is his chosen house system. Perhaps I should have mentioned Judith Hill works with equal houses and delineates accordingly. That was a plus for me ( I check charts with whole sign and equal) but it may detract from the utility of the book somewhat for those that prefer quadrant houses.

James-M wrote:

i will see if i can find some time to read over the section and get back with any additional comments for others here.

Thanks. Personally I intend to buy the book. But I am sure other members might find this interesting. I am beginning to recognise that modern literature on the nodes is far vaster than I had previously appreciated. Still most of it can be broken down into a few approaches as Fleur suggested at the start of the thread.

It seems this focus on the nodes and maternal issues is a kind of counterpoint to Tyl's emphasis on Saturn retrograde for paternal issues.

Mark

I am beginning to recognise that modern literature on the nodes is far vaster than I had previously appreciated.

Yes, modern astrologers have more delineations for the nodes than you can shake a stick at. Tyl just likes Dennis Flahrety's approach and Flahrety just made it up. Maternal influence is psychologically important, so it has to be in the chart somewhere. The nodes are in the chart, so let's use them.

Traditionalists are only slightly better. They are a bit more consistent, but hardly detailed in their explanations. North node/good; south node/bad isn't exactly the most profound of observations.

It seems this focus on the nodes and maternal issues is a kind of counterpoint to Tyl's emphasis on Saturn retrograde for paternal issues.

This I do recall. Tyl believes that Saturn Rx indicates that the native's father was either absent physically, absent emotionally, or tyrannical thus instilling feelings of inferiority in the native. The only exception is Saturn in Capricorn. Most psychologists heavily emphasize the maternal influence and probably for very good reason. Tyl is about the only astrologer who gives the father equal time.

Tyl and other modern psychological astrologers spend a lot of time on the negatives in the chart that result in human development. I don't know that I've ever heard an astrologer, or a psychologist for that matter, tell someone, "Oh you had such wonderful parents. That's why you are the magnificent person you are today." Maybe those people don't go to psychologists or astrologers.

Tyl doesn't use the so-called soft aspects all that much preferring to emphasize hard aspects since it is, in his opinion, difficulties that most shape human personality. And his main emphasis is on hard aspects to Saturn and the three outer planets. Those aspects can come from any other planet but squares between outers carry on for so long that it is difficult to see how they would influence so many people the same way. So the other planets from Jupiter in, that form hard aspects to Saturn and the three outers, are key in his system.

i think tom has it right about tyl leaning on the use of hard aspects more... but i think that comes out of his influence from ebertin, although it isn't acknowledged. and i do agree with tom about tyls approach to saturn retro as some type of quick way to define a persons relationship to their father as either being okay or not.. retro - not.. the fact is the nodes have to do with the moon, so an association with the mother and the nodes isn't any stretch to make, thus a psychological tie in with the mother and the nodes is an obvious association to make.

and tom is correct that tyl leans heavily on dennis flahertys work on the nodes. now whether that is to promote another book from the same publisher that tyl is always coincidentally promoting books for or not, i don't know.. if i wasn't so cynical i would say he gets a financial kick back for every Llewellyn Publication book that sells.. maybe he is a part owner of the company..
dennis flahertys book is called "mythic measurements of the moon's nodes:why the dragons are everywhere."

now i am sure i have said a few things to offend any uncritically devoted fans of tyl, but i think his saturn retro theory is a bunch of hocus pocus bs. i said that on his forum a number of years ago too which didn't go over too well, lol..

James_M wrote:

i think tom has it right about tyl leaning on the use of hard aspects more... but i think that comes out of his influence from ebertin, although it isn't acknowledged.

Tyl certainly acknowledged his debt to Ebertin in the workshops I attended over a decade ago. His approach to solar arcs only includes conjunction and hard aspects. He makes extensive use of midpoints too. He recommends people read Ebertin's book ie The Combination of Stellar Influences. So I dont think this is something Tyl fails to acknowledge. Other astrologers he refers to as influential are Dane Rudhyar, Marc Edmund Jones and Grant Lewi.

Mark

now i am sure i have said a few things to offend any uncritically devoted fans of tyl, but i think his saturn retro theory is a bunch of hocus pocus bs. i said that on his forum a number of years ago too which didn't go over too well, lol..

Hardly surprising. If you didn't value his work, you could have a) just left, or b) offered an intelligent critique that avoided being as insulting and dismissive as possible. Are you aware that you are coming across as the partner and opposite of the "uncritically devoted fan" - the uncritically devoted detractor?

You've made your own views sufficiently clear, so now please stop spotlighting the attention on Tyl. A lot of the personal criticisms you have made don't appear to be well substantiated, and this inevitably takes focus away from the astrological ideas and principles being asked about.

We do seem to have got caught up in an astrological cul de sac in all this discussion on Noel Tyl. Its not as if he is the only modern astrologer to write on the nodes!

One modern astrologer I generally enjoy reading is Celeste Teal. While I dont share her use of modern rulerships I think her ideas are generally well set out and level headed.

Below is a short piece by Celeste Teal which delineates the nodes by planetary contact. This can be used for both natal and the transiting nodes. Teal's interpretation of the nodes effect is actually fairly traditional.

One interesting addition though is the consideration of transiting nodes. Although this is increasingly common in western natal astrology I think this technique probably originated with Indian astrology. I dont recall seeing this in western traditional literature. Planetary contact with the transiting nodes is certainly one of the more practical ways you can assess the influence of nodes. I have looked at it quite a bit for mundane events.

http://www.moonvalleyastrologer.com/the-moons-nodes/

Mark

I like Celeste Teal too and have found her nodes transit interpretations useful.

Speaking of astrological cul de sacs, "karmic" and "mother knot" delineations of the nodes leave me going round in circles. I see them as untestable, culture bound, and the latter, in particular, sexist. But even without that view, the attributes of increase and decrease are so elegantly simple and tangible! A great place to start, in my opinion.

Donna, I think that "mother knot" idea was somebody grappling with a very difficult fundamental concept, that we are born into this world of duality of good and evil. Hats off to anyone who attempts to describe this, without trotting out the esoteric astrology North node good, South node bad.

I can understand the Indian idea of the North node being materialistic in a way that isn't good for the soul, and the South node showing material loss in a way that is good for the soul. But I can't relate these ideas to the way that the Nodes represent contacts with significant people. This I have noticed in many ways with Indian astrology, I respect its validity but it doesn't relate to how I use astrology. It is something separate that I would need to study in great depth. I find the new age, esoteric astrology idea that the North node is good and South node bad to be totally unfounded in anything I have observed. From my personal observations they are an axis that works as a unity, though in a totally unrelated way I accept the Indian way of looking at them too, but as something that needs a lot of study in its own right.

The effect of the Nodes can be stunningly measurable, especially when they are transiting. And I have found that overwhelmingly it is the Mean Node which is significant, not the "True" Node.

The history of these ideas is interesting. I have used the Solar Arcs, and find them absolutely essential, so that if you don't have a birth time so can't do Solar Arcs from the chart angles to the planets, you are missing an essential piece of the puzzle. I never knew before where these ideas came from.

Fleur wrote:

The effect of the Nodes can be stunningly measurable, especially when they are transiting. And I have found that overwhelmingly it is the Mean Node which is significant, not the "True" Node.

It's interesting that Celeste Teal writes in her book:

So in both cases the positions of the [mean and true] nodes are generally somewhat of an approximation, and they are never far apart from one another, within a degree or so. Due to their consistent retrograde motion, the mean lunar nodes are most relevant for a study of karmic and spiritual implications in a natal chart. When used as a timing device in progressions, it is also the mean nodes that appear to be most accurate.

You can read more of this excerpt on Amazon's "Look Inside" option. (Lunar Nodes, Discover Your Soul's Karmic Mission by Celeste Teal.)

Interesting discussion: does anyone know when the now-ubiquitous 'karmic' interpretation of the nodes (ie, N. Node for future evolution, S.Node for the unassimilated past) first appeared in Western astrology? Isabel Hickey popularized this approach in the 70s, but I'm guessing it originally came out of Theosophy. Can anyone pinpoint an author or source? Thanks.