Stefan wrote:

Ok that's all I have done so far. Maybe a thread later with more room for discussion about specific charts. Not so much research. More a fun astrological investigation.

This is how I see this thread, a place for investigation, and we can have fun in the process!

Therese

Therese wrote:

Map, you didn't come up with an accurate chart for Sister Jacinta.

I checked www.0800-horoscope.com and www.vaultoftheheavens.com website (two websites) and both give pisces ascendant for sister Jacinta.

Therefore, now i doubt the ascendant which you are using.

I am not for demonstrating the superiority of the principles i am using. I am only sharing my views. I do not need acceptance form anyone.

Also, i do not agree with your theory of using Neptune and Uranus being used in the 7th cusp and navamsa to justify celibate life. Many people born months and years from then on too mayl have these in their 7th. Weak justification.

Now, the details for the chart data:
5 Jan 1893. 8:38 pm , Indian Standard Time, Gorakhpur(India)

regards
map

I?ve put all of Paul?s comments together, and with limited time and energy, will reply as briefly as possible:

Paul wrote:

Quite apart from the fact that that isn't really the focus of this discussion, and that typically these kinds of arguments seldom lead to much good, I don't find these kinds of things compelling

Paul, we aren?t concerned about ?doing good,? and we?re not arguing. If you see our posts (especially mine) as arguments, then that?s just the way you look at it.

I think if we're trying to make these claims the only way to do it is to define some category which is crystal clear - such as achieving a high rank in the military - and performing a statistical analysis of at least a couple of hundred nativities of military personnel and see what statistical hits we have for those in the highest ranks, and compare against a similar sample but with a mix of professions to see if we still get these hits for military careers etc.

We don?t have 200 charts for military careers, but we could certainly compare 10 or 20 charts. Sure, I can look those up in ADB.

Until we do something like that, all we're really doing is picking a choosing a nativity which just so happens to conform with our thesis and isolating this nativity and implying it is a typical example when it may or may not be.

With ADB searches we aren?t picking a nativity. The computer is choosing charts that all have similar parameters.

...my post, for clarity, isn't a criticism of your post but just more a hope that we can all work toward a community where we don't feel the need to compete our zodiacs, but equally find respect and understanding between those who hold other views.

I?m sorry, Paul I see this as so much spin. It?s important to look at different viewpoints astrologically. Why is astrology still moribund in the entertainment field? Because there are no interpretation standards, no quality standards of any kind. There is no need for everyone to agree. Rather, we should take the scholarly approach and question and compare concepts.

(Reply continued in Part 2)

Reply to Paul, Part 2:

Paul wrote:

So I hope my post didn't come off as a rebuke or anything like that, just that we be cautious in any conclusions we might make from any isolated examples like this.

Sometimes your posts do come across as rebukes or blame. We aren?t showing just isolated examples. I collect many groups of charts from ADB that share similar traits or signs. This type of approach is respected and accepted in research circles. Mark McDonough, the father of ADB, has described this specific approach as valid for research. He suggests that astrologers do exactly what I am doing.

Of course, I say this only because some of the language used here may come across like a survey or systematic report of astrological placement via the ADB database, and so can have the veneer of studiousness, but of course my point is just that it's important we recognise these things don't really demonstrate anything other than talking points and things of interest to discuss - certainly they don't point to any evidence one way or another.

Actually some ADB searches do provide some evidence for sign or mansion characteristics. These searches provide more than ?talking points.? They encourage further investigation into certain concepts. We aren?t talking statistics at this stage of the game. We?re only showing examples to encourage further study.

I must admit, I don't quite follow why you eliminate the homosexual charts. Can you explain? You say because there are so many gay charts you removed this as a category. From this, I think you mean you don't want to imply that homosexuality shows up more than normal for, say, a stellium in Pisces.

Yes, since gay charts show up in every search, it can give the wrong idea if in a Pisces stellium search, say three gay charts are in the mix. Someone collected a large number of gay charts for ADB, and there is no information for these charts except that they are given a number (Homosexual 2159) with absolutely no other information except a ?coming out? date in some cases.

So these charts have nothing to do with any sign search, though something might show up for a planet aspect search. Such a loss, because it would have been so helpful to have extensive biographical information for more than 2000 gay charts.

What I am saying is that it's too easy to read these kinds of posts as an attempt to demonstrate some validity to the sidereal zodiac which is lacking in the tropical.

And why not? This is a sidereal forum. There are mountains of books in many languages showing how the tropical zodiac works. Why criticize a small attempt to show how sidereal concepts apply to real people?? Does the huge collection of Big Brother books not like what a a few little people are doing on their own?

Unfortunately the thread is littered with comparisons to, say, tropical lords with explanations of why those are all incorrect and the sidereal lords are correct.

If you question that assumption, why not post some examples in the tropical zodiac that illustrate how sign lords are equally valid in that zodiac? Why constantly complain instead of providing your own examples? Of course I see that the planets express much more clearly in the sidereal zodiac. That?s one reason I made the switch from tropical to sidereal. As I've said before, I have more than 40 years of astrological study as a background.

A couple of things. Firstly, if this thread is really meant to be about showcasing the fallacies of the tropical lords in comparison to the sidereal ones, at least let's be clear and say so, and when I come on to highlight it, let's at least not disagree that this is the focus.

Stefan has clearly stated the purpose of this thread. I?ve quoted his words in my previous post, and you have also quoted his words in a post.

I'm sorry you think [that my posts are too long] so, I do try to be concise. I note some of your own threads are exceptionally long so perhaps you will at least sympathise.

My long posts deal with ADB searches and explain sidereal concepts. They aren?t long paragraphs about my beliefs with extensive explanations about my personal perspectives. However (my own posts notwithstanding) I?m much for likely to give short posts my attention.

A special word about Statistics:
Anyone who knows anything at all about statistics will recognize that nothing I?ve posted here on Skyscript is statistical. Statistics are highly mathematical and use complex formulas. If astrologers see my posts as statistical, then perhaps they should take a college statistics course so they understand the difference between statistics and the small groups of charts posted on this forum.

To make it clear to everyone: My posts on this sidereal forum are not even remotely related to statistics. They are computer generated collections of charts, all of which have astrological factors in common as noted in each post. Posts are descriptive only, not statistical.

And yes, this is a long post because it?s a reply to Paul?s long posts. My apologies to anyone who made it to the end.

Therese

Stefan wrote:

I would add some things I notice.
Your sister has a nice aspected moon by benefics (Cheerfulness) Strong Jupiter (in navamsha too - strongest planet on asc.
This is helpful for good character.
Her calling as a religious renunciate is fascinating with Ketu spiritual planet in 10H. That is common. Also Saturn neptune (renunciation) aspects to MC.

Valerie Solana has when looking at Nakshatra's her chart ruler and 10H ruler Jupiter in Nakshatra Mula. Which is somewhat potentially destructive.
Mula is ruled by goddess "Nivritti" associated with "Kali".
This in combination with bad placements for mental health was important.
Mercury in pisces debilitation combust. Also in declination with Saturn and Neptune.

Moon in 8H (whole sign) aspected by Mars (whole sign aspect).
Moon conjunct Saturn in navamsha.
And as you say sister Jacinta has different moon nakshatras.
Jacinta has nice Chitra nakshatra (charming). And Valerie has nakshatra Vishaka which can when being negative give mental fixations (Hitler for example had his moon in Vishaka.)

All very good points, Stefan. These two charts are really helpful for explaining the sidereal zodiac and nakshatras. The charts contain many concepts "in action" from classical Indian texts.

One scientist's view of two astrological zodiacs:

"The difference [in zodiacs] has now accumulated to 24 days. For example the Sun enters the sign of Aries on 22 March while it enters the Aries constellation on 14 April. Some astrologers use signs and others use rasis for their horoscope predictions which shows the non-scientific nature of astrology."

Professor K.D. Abhyankar, Pre-Siddhantic Indian Astronomy (2007), p. 225

Therese Hamilton wrote: We don?t have 200 charts for military careers, but we could certainly compare 10 or 20 charts. Sure, I can look those up in ADB.
...
With ADB searches we aren?t picking a nativity. The computer is choosing charts that all have similar parameters.
...
Why is astrology still moribund in the entertainment field? Because there are no interpretation standards, no quality standards of any kind. There is no need for everyone to agree. Rather, we should take the scholarly approach and question and compare concepts.

To be clear then, you really are approaching this topic in an attempt to demonstrate something scholarly using whatever data sample you have available. Why? To be clear then, this isn't just conversations and demonstrations, like you suggest to me when I highlight this attempt at some kind of academic of statistical approach to the charts. If this isn't statistical, then why do you need greater data samples, and which scholarly approach are you using here if not a statistical one?

As I say before, if you truly want to be scholarly about this, then at the very least you would account for anomalies which occur through the entire zodiac. You do this arbitrarily for homosexual charts, dismissing them out of hand because they show up so often, but perhaps if you did it for every profession etc. then you'd find that the military careers for sidereal aries don't seem all that compelling either.

You say you are not picking a chart, simply allowing the computer to filter charts on parameters, but when you then go and choose one and highlight it, which at least Stefan has done, and which you've done to a lesser extent, then of course you are choosing a nativity - whether thats Rodney King, Charles Baudelaire, or anyone else. You are choosing these charts as they are examples of a narrative or thesis you want to demonstrate, but to be clear, they are definitely chosen. For example with the pisces sample group, I notice that nobody picked the attorney and basketball player - why? My guess is that because these charts don't inform us on the thesis you wish for us to believe.

Therefore this sampling in this manner is not a scholarly approach, it merely appears as one. This was my very criticism, to which Stefan reminds me that these are just casual discussions, this isn't an academic institution, but to which you state that you are attempting a scholarly approach. Clearly it's easy to see how I'm confused by what's trying to happen here.

If it isn't meant to be an academic/scholarly approach, let's not dress it up as though it is, and if it is, let's do better and be truly scholarly about it.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Sometimes your posts do come across as rebukes or blame. We aren?t showing just isolated examples. I collect many groups of charts from ADB that share similar traits or signs. This type of approach is respected and accepted in research circles. Mark McDonough, the father of ADB, has described this specific approach as valid for research. He suggests that astrologers do exactly what I am doing.

But is this thread then meant to be taken as astrological research? Or as a conversation like yourself and Stefan suggest? If it's research, what are its methodologies if not statistical?

If these are just talking points to encourage further study, then we wouldn't be making conclusions or comments on them, but as you do, we know that this is more than just raising talking points, it is also about using these as examples to demonstrate some point rather than merely talk about them. Also if it really is a talking point, surely there would be no problem with my talking about them with some criticism, but when I do you hypothetically ask why a tropical moderator has come here and then suggest my criticisms are rebukes. I hope you can understand then why I may see it as being more than just a talking point.

Yes, since gay charts show up in every search, it can give the wrong idea if in a Pisces stellium search, say three gay charts are in the mix

Right so you recognise that some cases, in this example homosexual charts, can show up disproportionately highly for a given sign. But so might basketball players or so on. The best approach would be that if you're going to account for it for one category to do so for all categories. Namely you would say we have 120 homosexual charts and 10 of them show up here for Pisces, which is what we'd expect really (120/12 = 10). So then we are more concerned not about the number of hits for a given label/tag, be that attorney or homosexual nativity, but about the ratio between this sign and the expected norm. That would be at least scholarly like you say, be more akin to research like you imagine, and where we don't simply pluck one chart from the result, really could raise some talking points.

Enough on the research approach then, I've said my piece on this now, you can disagree if you prefer, but I feel it's important to highlight the flaws of this approach if you really do believe and want to do something which is akin to a scholarly approach or research. If not, that's okay too, but I think it's still worth saying.

My main point of disagreement however is not the approach to chart sampling, which is really more an aside, but the apparently unceasing inability to discuss the sidereal zodiac on its own merits without recourse to having to juxtapose it against the tropical zodiac which plays patsy or foil to the sidereal argument.

That is not what this forum was set up for, and I really have no idea why the tropical zodiac needs to be mentioned whatsoever in the sidereal forum. Surely we can make compelling cases for the sidereal zodiac on its own merits by demonstrating the sidereal case without continually comparing it to the tropical zodiac at the expense of the tropical zodiac.
To reiterate Deb's message from the sticky of this forum:
this isn't the place to compare the tropical and sidereal zodiacs

You say you are not doing this, if so, why mention the tropical zodiac at all, surely the sidereal zodiac can be articulated without ever mentioning the tropical one. And when you juxtapose the two and draw a contrast, then in my view that really is against the spirit of Deb's comment here. I'm not here to moderate Martin's forum, but just as a person who loves that we have a sidereal zodiac here (so I can sneak in and learn if nothing else) and someone who respects the good work of many sidereal astrologers (like yourself, Stefan and Martin), I find it not just disappointing but against the ethos of this forum when the tropical zodiac plays patsy like this.

How depressing if everyone started doing this, imagine reading in each thread "..which is shown by (troipcal) Venus angular, ruler of the ascendant (which supports my reserach into the efficacy of the tropical zodiac and not the sidereal one)". In every post. In every thread. People commenting with a side-eye at some other zodiac they don't use.

If you question that assumption, why not post some examples in the tropical zodiac that illustrate how sign lords are equally valid in that zodiac?

I can't imagine any way in which this might achieve my goal: to be more moderate and respectful about the two zodiacs even if we disagree about their use, and to not fall for the trap of needing to compete or compare the zodiacs. I can't imagine how that approach would help at all, in fact it would be doing exactly the opposite.

Therese wrote:

Map, you didn't come up with an accurate chart for Sister Jacinta.

I checked www.0800-horoscope.com and www.vaultoftheheavens.com website (two websites) and both give pisces ascendant for sister Jacinta.

Therefore, now i doubt the ascendant which you are using.

I am not for demonstrating the superiority of the principles i am using. I am only sharing my views. I do not need acceptance from anyone.

Also, i do not agree with your theory of using Neptune and Uranus being used in the 7th cusp and navamsa to justify celibate life. Many people born months and years from then on too mayl have these in their 7th. Weak justification.

Now, the details for the chart data:
5 Jan 1893. 8:38 pm , Indian Standard Time, Gorakhpur(India)

This is the chart of Paramahamsa Yogananda.

regards
map

Correction:

I stated that Hitler had his Moon in Vishaka nakshatra. That was from memory. And memory failed. Hitler had not anything in Vishaka.

I also want to say that I have not choosed chart in the search. It was what came up. Then by memory Hitlers chart and Baudelaires chart appeared in my mind as I was familiar with them from Before, and it was mentioned as comparison.
These correlations are important I think.

Some quotes from me may contain the word "tropical zodiac". But that may be pasted in from another thread about "tropical vedic astrology" which they originated from.
The subject is a bit infected as an heritage from the past with some "wars" going on between fellow astrologers.
I have used the tropical zodiac and are now using sidereal. Some sidereal astrologers are now using the tropical. This suggests that both have it's inherent value.

I would be happy if this could be a solely sidereal study with charts with some signs dominated by sidereal signs. I have not seen this been done much before in any forum.

As this thread was elected astrologically by choosing a Muhurta/electional timed chart for fun.

Now this electional chart have the asc.


Quote from Therese in "Tropical astrology thread"

Yes, Mula isn't the best, but it can be good for astrological learning and research, as you said, Stefan. The best time I have gives these positions:

Asc 9 Sag (Gemini navamsa)
Moon 11 Sag (Cancer navamsa)
Jupiter 15 Leo (Leo navamsa)

So Moon is in a good navamsa, and Jupiter is vargottama. It's only a forum thread, yes, but let's see if there is some interesting discussion! The only problem is I have to be away tomorrow for several hours, but I'll try to arrange to be home in the afternoon.

This electional chart have Mars in 9 House trining the ascendant and moon videly. These last two days transiting Mars is perfecting these trines and giving some heated (mars) discussions of contextual principles (9H) about the thread. But in civil way (trine).