I dont have an agenda but when people said they all had signs of eminence it occurred to me this could be a beaten track.
If you can be famous with the Sun in all houses then the theory becomes meaningless.
When I see so many possibilities of eminence like the position of 10th,MC, 5th house, and the 4 main lots I become a bit concerned thats all.
At least in traditional astrology you can only be famous with a strong MC or its ruler,theoretically.
But im not close to the hypothesis. There must be a difference betwen eminence through arts or politics,law etc otherwise anything goes.
In fact this one reason astrologers have been criticized in recent years. They want the cake and eat it too.
I dont do it professionally so i have no agenda.

But I agree i dont like to have the Sun in 8th house

damon wrote:

At least in traditional astrology you can only be famous with a strong MC or its ruler,theoretically.

I am not contributing to any chart analysis now but I have to ask what is this 'Traditional astrology' you speak of?

Alan Leo, Dane Rudhyar?

Mark

Since around Kepler. I know about Lily but I dont use horary

damon wrote:

Since around Kepler. I know about Lily but I dont use horary

Ok well my advice is stick with what inspires and makes sense to you. Its clear hellenistic astrology doesn't appeal to you so rather than stirring up a hornets nest of bad feeling here and being accused of trolling I would avoid criticising techniques that you dont practice or fully understand.

I dont do Uranian or Huber astrology myself but I equally dont see the point making statements challenging their astrological approach as I neither practice it or find their methodology that appealing.

If you think the MC is all there is to eminence in the horoscope then good luck to you. You can delineate away like most modern astrologers to your hearts content. However, your not going to get any support on the traditional forum.

This forum exists to share ideas amongst those coming from a basically traditional perspective. Its not a place to constantly seek to challenge traditional astrology. Of course we have our disagreements. However, we come from a shared desire to share, learn and listen. If you dont think that traditional astrology is right thats fine. All you have to do is look elsewhere for your astrological inspiration.

damon wrote:

There must be a difference betwen eminence through arts or politics,law etc otherwise anything goes

.

I think you are confusing two different things. Eminence or fame is different from identifying profession or occupation in the chart. There are clearly different 'occupational signatures' in a chart. People can become famous for reasons other than their occupation.

Mark

I dont think MC is all.
I think several planets in a sign or house are a positive sign given that the person is obssessed with a certain area of life,which can eventually lead to fame. This apparently isnt mentioned in the oldst astrology but it is logical and is just one example.
i have a cousin who is not a celebrity yet he gives seminars on Dyslexia around the world.
His MC lord,Sun is in 6th house. But Asc lord is in 9th
So,it depends on what is meant by eminence

Damon wrote,

I dont think MC is all.

Ok

Damon wrote:

I think several planets in a sign or house are a positive sign given that the person is obssessed with a certain area of life,which can eventually lead to fame. This apparently isnt mentioned in the oldst astrology but it is logical and is just one example.

That is something any astrologer would be interested in.

i have a cousin who is not a celebrity yet he gives seminars on Dyslexia around the world. His MC lord,Sun is in 6th house. But Asc lord is in 9th. So,it depends on what is meant by eminence

I suggest you take a look at this old thread that discusses the traditional approach to fame or eminence. Astrojin does one of his typically brilliant posts and summarises many of the methods used . As I said above though eminence is totally different from finding astrological signatures for occupation or profession.

Judging by your interests in Kepler and Lilly you will probably relate better to the ideas of a late renaissance astrologer like Morin so Tom's comments will probably make more sense to you:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 6cfd8d86b3

Mark

thanks

Hi,
this is useful, too:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6956746/Five- ... -Astrology

Trojan

damon wrote:

Tzadde wrote:Well, what are you trying to say? Do you want to ask something?

i dont see eminence signs in those charts

I know this has been asked before, but I don't think you answered so I'll ask again.

As this is the traditional forum, in your opinion what would show, traditionally, eminence in a given chart?

I did answer that to Mark, Paul

Regards

damon wrote:I did answer that to Mark, Paul

Regards

Hi Damon

Actually I only found this quote:
"At least in traditional astrology you can only be famous with a strong MC or its ruler,theoretically."

Is this what you mean - just a strong MC or ruler?
You say this is from around Kepler. Could you cite a source for this in the tradition? I'm curious what author says you can only be famous with a strong MC or ruler.

No,see the previous page.MC 10th house rulers, lots and their rulers and to some extent 5th house