Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:43 pm**

[quote="skippy"]On reflection with given such a high ratio in one prison it looks as if I'm saying statistically most paedophiles are Aquarian. I'm a not whatsover prejudiced to Aquarians. It was just a small scale observation another astrologer made insinuating that she found strong Uranus attachments involved in that sort of behaviour. Alice Baily talks about the Uranus, Saturn, Mercury triangle each having an effect on cultural processes, effects, and alleviation of pain. So it is easy to see why we are mixing them up.

I cut my teeth on Margaret Hone and part of her teachings was that Aries ruled my mars first house and so on she also taught malefics and benefics, fall, detriment etc. Is she classed as a modern Astrologer?

Take Kurt Cobain's chart
20.2.07
7.20 pm
Washington

he has a few planets in their own sign and in exaltation. Most striking though is the Pluto on the 12th house ascendent. He was a major player in his day on the music scene and tragically cut short his fame and glory by shooting himself in the head aged 27 leaving behind a wife and young child and music legacy that lives on.

His songs echo a preoccupation with power, obsession in love and corruption. He despised authority and modern structures. I suppose you would say Jupiter is malefic because it is in the 11th house (groups, society) and in cancer.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:37 pm**

skippy wrote:
skippy wrote:
I cut my teeth on Margaret Hone and part of her teachings was that Aries ruled my mars first house and so on she also taught malefics and benefics, fall, detriment etc. Is she classed as a modern Astrologer?
Well, her bio says this:

"[...]Margaret Ethelwyn Hone was an important astrologer in the mid 1900s, yet modern use of her great work has been largely lost in the New-Age-heavy "Modern Astrology" of the turn of the century. Ms. Hone is remembered mostly as a text-book astrologer, of which she was honored to be, and as an Englishwoman, she counted among her close friends men such as Charles E. O. Carter, Marc Edmund Jones, and Dane Rudhyar.

Where Carter and Jones ventured into fatalistic interpretations of astrology - that some planets were indeed malefic and thus classified as "evil", a concept which has been swept under the rug of "Modern Astrology" - Ms. Hone held the textbook line.[...]"

So it seems that she stuck more to the traditional teachings of astrology and wasn't inclined to jump on the New Age bandwagon.

skippy wrote:Take Kurt Cobain's chart
20.2.07
7.20 pm
Washington

he has a few planets in their own sign and in exaltation. Most striking though is the Pluto on the 12th house ascendent. He was a major player in his day on the music scene and tragically cut short his fame and glory by shooting himself in the head aged 27 leaving behind a wife and young child and music legacy that lives on.

His songs echo a preoccupation with power, obsession in love and corruption. He despised authority and modern structures. I suppose you would say Jupiter is malefic because it is in the 11th house (groups, society) and in cancer.
How could Jupiter be malefic in Cancer and in the 11th house? I'm not following you.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:26 pm**

it rules Saggitarius, according to Halbronn Jupiter is exalted in Capricorn and given cancer is opposite it is in fall. In vedic astrology a planet that is not happy where it should be will affect the native in malefic way. Gosh I'm sensing traditionalism is seeping into my bones. I guess I'm anticipating what Tom is going to say about Cobain's addictive lifestyle and preoccupation with death.

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:47 pm**

skippy wrote:it rules Saggitarius, according to Halbronn Jupiter is exalted in Capricorn and given cancer is opposite it is in fall. In vedic astrology a planet that is not happy where it should be will affect the native in malefic way. Gosh I'm sensing traditionalism is seeping into my bones. I guess I'm anticipating what Tom is going to say about Cobain's addictive lifestyle and preoccupation with death.

I don't think it's seeped in very far.

You've got the dignities wrong.

Jupiter rules both Sagittarius and Pisces. It is in it's detriment in Gemini and Virgo (the two opposite signs). It is actually exalted in Cancer, so in its fall in Capricorn.

See Ptolemy's table of essential dignities: http://www.astrologycom.com/dignities.html

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:13 pm**

Yeah I noticed before you posted that traditionally jupiter is exalted in Cancer. I've looked at your link. What do the faces mean? Where it is at degree angle at certain times of the day according to planets listed in the first column?

So what would his preoccupation be with death then if we are to ignore the blatant fact that Pluto is on his ascendent?

Posted: **Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:14 pm**

Cobain was born in Aberdeen, Washington (State) in 1967. Asc. is 19 Virgo 59.

Posted: **Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:37 am**

skippy wrote:Yeah I noticed before you posted that traditionally jupiter is exalted in Cancer. I've looked at your link. What do the faces mean? Where it is at degree angle at certain times of the day according to planets listed in the first column?

So what would his preoccupation be with death then if we are to ignore the blatant fact that Pluto is on his ascendent?

Regarding the stuff about faces from Tony Louis' site: "The weakest form of essential dignity, "like a man about to be turned out of doors.". Each sign is divided into three 10 degree faces, and a different planet has dignity in each face of the sign."

Regarding Cobain:
I'm not ignoring that Pluto at all. But there are other indications of his violent, self-inflicted death. I'm sure others here are much better at delineating natal charts with traditional techniques than I am, but a few things stand out to me.

Traditionally, the 8th house shows the manner of death, and in his case, it's ruled by Mars in Scorpio. Mars is "home" in Scorpio, IOW, powerful and true to it's violent nature. It rules itself and does whatever it wants with no hindrance from anything else in the chart. It is in a trine to the Sun, which is one's main life force and consciousness, so it has free access.

The Sun rules his 12th house, and quoting from Deb's site, the 12th is "a wholly unfortunate house, associated with sad events, sorrow, anguish of mind, tribulation, captivity, imprisonment, persecution, hard labour, all manner of affliction and self-undoing." Placed in the 6th house of illness and disease, it is also in the same sign as his debilitated Mercury, which just happens to oppose his ascendant from the 6th house, as well.

His Venus and Saturn are conjunct, never an uplifting or positive combination, and in fact one that often leads to depression because the pleasures and joys of life are seriously restricted. Also, Pisces is a sign that Mars in Scorpio can "see" (trine), so the ruler of his death has full, unimpeded access to his life force, and his mind. And Jupiter, though very strong, encourages and expands all of that Pisces stellium, especially the Saturn Venus conjunction. It does show the outpouring of love from the public (11th house placement, ruling the 7th) and as ruler of the 4th the conditions just after death (greatly mourned and missed by many), but does not protect him from himself.

Mars is also applying to conjunction with the South Node, a traditionally unfortunate point. By way of example, here's one explanation of the South Node:

"Aspects to the Dragon's Tail display the results of innate unconscious tendencies and karmic patterns as they emerge in the life. They tend to be separative and destructive. Any aspect to the South Node from any planet is unfortunate for matters to do with the house and planet activated thereby. Past life hangovers are represented by the position and aspects of the Dragon's Tail."

Another thought is that his ASC ruler is debilitated in the 7th house of open enemies. He was his own worst enemy!

So what that all says is: here's a guy who has a naturally weak mind, and a natuarally morbid frame of mind, and a pretty obvious case of mental illness (depression and undiagnosable stomach pain were things he complained about and are ultimately believed to have led him to commit suicide). Combine that with an extremely strong 8th house ruler conjunct the South Node and with access to all that Pisces stuff, and it isn't surprising that his life, and death, turned out the way they did. And you don't need to look at even one outer planet to see all that.

I'm not saying the outers don't matter, but I am saying that there are certainly other explanations for his life and death, for his preoccupation with death and his morbid tendencies, than Pluto on his ASC.

Posted: **Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:38 pm**

Hi guys,

[I wrote this last night before Sharyn's most recent post, but the computer network where I am crashed and I couldn't post, so some of the things I've written were answered by Sharyn. Sorry for the duplications. I don't have time to edit mine again]

Don't we have lots of work to do here.

Dignities

The five essential dignities are rulership, exaltation, triplicity, term and face. The terms are sometimes called "bounds" and face is sometimes called "decanates." Face is the weakest of the five dignities and Lilly says it represents a man about to be turned out of his home. The only thing you can say about face, says Lilly, is that we cannot call a planet peregrine if it is in his face only. It is a very weak essential dignity.

Space doesn't permit going into all the ways to use the minor dignities (term and face), but when using a predictive method, progressions, directions, etc it is noteworthy if a planet is about to move into his term or face or out of it for that matter. It indicates a change.

Kurt Cobain

Mr. Cobain and I share a few things beginning with our birthdays. I am a bit older than he, however, but we were both born on Feb 20. We both have the Sun trine Moon in Cancer, his is very wide however, and I made it well past age 27.

Cobain's preoccupation with death is seen first by looking at Lord 8, Mars in Scorpio in 2. He made money from it. But the 2nd is also associated with self worth. Death and the self are linked. The part of death is at 20 Gemini and being ever suspicious of round number birth times, I'd bet his might be a couple of minutes off putting the part of death smack on the MC. Mercury, ruler of the ASC, MC, and the part of death is seriously debilitated in Pisces, accidentally strong on the 7th cusp, and interestingly, conjunct the 2nd cusp by antiscion (using the 7:20 time and Placidus cusps) again associating death and making money. The exaltation ruler of the 8th is his peregrine Sun further weakened by its position in the 6th house of illness in a tight trine with the domicile ruler of the 8th Mars. Let's toss Pluto on the ASC and we get a guy who is mixed up with death, ultimately to his deteriment (ASC ruler in Pisces). But after everything else I'm not sure we need Pluto.

Notice Venus in Pisces (exaltation) ruler of the house of self worth in a tight trine with an exalted Jupiter who is retrograde; retrograde planets work against the native. His wife is a trip. This could have been or should have been a powerful force for benefit in his life, but the combination of the retrograde Jupiter and Venus conjunct Saturn turned it against him.

Now, I don't know anything about this guy other than he became famous as a rock star and more famous as a suicide. Not wishing to offend anyone on list or the memory of the late Mr. Cobain let's just leave it at this: his "music" is not my taste."

Malefics and benefics:

If you wish to spend the next week or so perusing all the posts on this list going as far back as you can, what follows has appeared in one form or another several times. But it is always worth mentioning. The words malefic and benefic are the strawmen that modern astrologers like to knock down when they attack traditional astrology. The problem is, like rulership, they realy don't know what those words mean. Let's start with what they don't mean:

Malefic does not mean bad all the time no matter what.
Benefic does not mean good all the time no matter what.

As noted above in Cobain's chart Jupiter in Cancer in the 11th no less, the most fortunate house, works against him, and Jupiter is the greater benefic in a trine aspect with the exalted lesser benefic. What gives? Furthermore he isn't the only musician to get clobbered by an exalted Jupiter. Janis Joplin had Jupiter in Cancer in 5 and she killed herself, too. I don't know why Cobain killed himself, but too much of a good thing could well have been part of it.

Benefics are supposed to bring us the finer things in life, and when they do in moderation, all is well. But excess is not beneficial. There is that thing called free will that can turn even the best of benefics against the native. Jay Gould, 19th century American financeer had both Jupiter and Venus in the 2nd and he became the richest man in the world, but by the end of his life he was also the most despised and miserable man in the world.

Malefics often are associated with forcing us to do things we don't want to do. These can be mundane tasks like cleaning the garage, or more selfless like serving once's country in the military. Both are necessary parts of life, and they don't bring the pleasures of Venus and Jupiter. But Venus brings venereal disease as well as physical pleasure, and Saturn brings respect as well as duty.

Fatalism

Traditional astrology is no more "fatalistic" than modern astrology. Moderns again make a case out of something they don't understand. Yes the traditional authors sound awfully fatalistic, but so do modern authors if you look at it that way. Noel Tyl teaches that virtually everyone with Saturn Rx in the chart has an absent, tyrannical or emotionally distant father. When it was pointed out to him that Saturn is Rx about 30% of the year, he figured about 30% of humanity has such a father. No one would call Tyl a traditionalist, and there are few if any such delineations in traditional astrology that are more fatalistic than his delineation of Saturn Rx. The short version is this: the charge that traditional astrology is fatalistic and modern astrology is not is simply hogwash. If astrology isn't at some level fatalistic, why bother with it? Nothing would work.

I don't know anything about Margaret Hone, and I don't have time to wax eloquent on the era in which she was most prominent and how that shaped her views and the views of those other astrologers mentioned and the things said about them. But the perspective of what is and isn't "traditional astrology" has changed since her day. Tyl thinks Alan Leo is a traditional astrologer because that is they way he was looked on when Tyl learned his astrology in the 60s and 70s.

That's going to have to do for now.

Tom

Posted: **Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:18 pm**

The more the astrologer knows about this history of the use of the outer planets, the more likely he is to abandon them. At least I think so.

And the more the astrologer knows about the use of the outer planets, the less likely he is to abandon them. At least, I think so.

Tom, your reading of Cobain is fine, but we do need Pluto to make it specifically individual. The key feature of Pluto on the Ascendant in a natal chart is expressing (Asc) exposure (Pluto). Pluto exposes -- see Bailey. If it exposes sex, death, criminality, that's what is there to be exposed. If there is true spirituality, Pluto exposes that too (but not in the same chart, of course - "redemption" is a myth of English Literature experts). The common association of Pluto with the "dark side" is due to the fact that there is a lot more of the former than the latter going around.

if astrology is just a arbitrary and random assigning of attributes to planets, why did all cultures associate Mars with war, and Venus with beauty, and not the other way around on occasion? In fact the accepted meanings of all the planets are pretty similar from culture to culture where no interation between them is known to have existed.

According to one narrative it was all to do with some very strange celestial events which were witnessed all over the planet -- events not primarily due to Mars or Venus, but to Saturn. See for example http://www.kronia.com/saturn.html

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:21 am**

Tom, your reading of Cobain is fine, but we do need Pluto to make it specifically individual.

I can't see how it is possible to be more specific to the individual than using the Lord of the Ascendant. Pluto adds nothing to this chart that isn't easily seen elsewhere. If we follow your thought proscess to it logical end, it can only mean that all delineations prior to 1930 are seriously lacking. I find this to be absurd. I also can't see how a planet that takes 240 years to make a single revolution is specific to much of anything.

The problem with the outer planets is made perfectly in your post. They mean anything anyone wants them to.

Tom

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:37 pm**

I can't see how it is possible to be more specific to the individual than using the Lord of the Ascendant.

Oh, that's unforgiveable -- planet actually on the Ascendant.

Pluto adds nothing to this chart that isn't easily seen elsewhere.

Tell me if I am not being clear enough, otherwise I shall assume it's a case of not wanting to see...

If we follow your thought proscess to it logical end, it can only mean that all delineations prior to 1930 are seriously lacking. I find this to be absurd.

That someone has not considered the possibilty (or seen cases) in which delineations are seriously lacking is either naive or negligent.

I also can't see how a planet that takes 240 years to make a single revolution is specific to much of anything.

Another unbelievable statement from an astrologer (I take it you consider yourself one?). It is specific when conjoined with the angles and/or the lights.

The problem with the outer planets is made perfectly in your post. They mean anything anyone wants them to.

This is news. I consider there are problems with (a) overlapping characterisations, (b) partial characterisations, but there is also considerable consensus.

Posted: **Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:58 pm**

Oh, that's unforgiveable -- planet actually on the Ascendant.

Which makes it valuable as a fixed star - nothing else. I said, and surely you missed, that perhaps outer planets can used as fixed stars. You'll note that the sign that holds the fixed star is given little attention in delineation. The same can be said for a planet that moves little more than a degree a year on average.

Tell me if I am not being clear enough, otherwise I shall assume it's a case of not wanting to see...

You've obviously said nothing to alter my viewpoint. That fact that you are clear in your mind does not obligate anyone to change their mind. That's the way children think. More on mind changing below. I've already changed mine.

That someone has not considered the possibilty (or seen cases) in which delineations are seriously lacking is either naive or negligent.

Hubris.

Another unbelievable statement from an astrologer (I take it you consider yourself one?). It is specific when conjoined with the angles and/or the lights.

You really need to look at what I wrote rather than work so hard to maintain your prejudices. Use as a fixed star is OK. Do you know how to use fixed stars? They are prominent when conjunct an angle, or maybe the lights or a planet of their nature. In Cobain's chart Pluto is on the ASC, so it is of some use. But there is nothing in Cobain's chart regarding death, which was the topic, if you've forgotten, that can't be seen elsewhere. Use Pluto if you have to. Some of us don't.

Now Coder it is time to grow up and learn. Those of us who have have taken up the study of traditional astrology have done so after finding modern astrology lacking. As far as the outer planets, asteroids, hypotheticals, midpoints, dark moons and whatever else is on the techniques du jour list, it is all done to make up for what modern astrology lacks - depth. In the vernacular, we've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and found it wanting.

As for continual refernces to Baily I am always reminded of John Frawley's observation that calling something "esoteric astrology" is like painting a sign with an arrow on it that says "This way to the secret hideout."

I'm not naive, you are way undereducated in this subject, particularly if you can do no better than Baily as a primary source.

And we've been over this ground on this list and elsewhere, so often, that there is no point in continuing. Stick with your outers and "esoterics" if you find new age flapdoodle preferable to real astrology.

Tom

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The New Planets in the Outer Solar System