Hi,


I do think all this discussion of 'collectivism' is taking us off in a bit of a tangent. I thought I used the word 'collective' which for me at least has a far more modest etymology. All I was referring to was an interest in social, political or community affairs. I wasn't advocating which political system is best. To see me as arguing collectivism inevitably stems from Aquarius would be going too far. The Aquarian focus on community issues could go off in a myriad of directions.

Still if you want to discuuss politics I am up for it. The next two paragraphs are about politics not astrology. Please skip them if are just interested in astrology.

I am no defender of Marxist tyranny so you are not going to get any apologetics from me in defence of Mao, Lenin, Stalin etc. Although Cuba is a slightly different story.Yes they are now rationing. Largely due to the irrational and vindictive policies of successive US administrations since Kennedy. Its interesting the US is willing to give China most favoured trading nation status with its horrific human rights record yet Cuba is still a pariah state.

As for my mention of government intervention I personally think any civilised liberal democracy must involve a degree of this. The state's role in law and order, and education for example. I happen to disagree with you on nationalised health care services too. Thats is not say our system is perfect but what we have in the UK seems far preferable to a system like yours where a sizeable proportion of the population cannot afford health insurance. Your libertarian, free market utopia is fine if you are rich and can choose your children's schools, or your health plan. However, where is the safety net in your society if you happen to be poor or vulnerable? Of course its a pendulum which can swing too far either way but the idea that the unbridled free market has the answer to all social ills is as big a myth as the Marxist faith in the proletariat owning the means of production. Both extremes fail because of human greed.

Lets get back to astrology.....

I have been looking at my small library of traditional texts and confess I have come up with zero support for the association of Saturn with democracy. Although perhaps that is not suprising since democracy in the modern sense didn't really appear until astrology had already went into a steep decline. There had of course been republican government in Rome but astrology's introduction there seems to have started during the Imperial era. Still, perhaps, a political system like democracy is too complex to find signification in one planet. I am therefore coming around to your argument on this point. Reflectiing on this further I agree that having the greater malefic symbolising democracy is an uncomfortable position to arrive at.

Although we shouldn't dismiss dualism quite so easily. The neo-pythagorean legacy seem to have influenced lots of key astrological concepts such as antiscia, aspects, sect , sign rulership etc.

Diurnal signs are more assertive than receptive. That's all.

I accept I took the diurnal point further on its own than would normally be the case. Let me try and reformulate my position. In essence I would focus on four things about Aquarius : its diurnal, sanguine, humane nature and the fact that self (Sun) is essentially weakened in this sign. To pick up the latter point especially, we see in the sign of the Sun's fall (Libra) an emphasis on personal relationships outside the self relating to its ruler Venus. In the case of Aquarius we again see a weakened self (Sun) relating to its ruler Saturn. Saturn is about structure and here we see the humane nature of the sign focusing outside the self into society.

It is of human form only." Ibn Ezra

Other traditional sources don't just refer to the humane signs as just human in form. They are contrasted to the 'bestial' and particularly the 'feral' signs which have the capacity to act in more brutal ways. Its therefore an issue of both form and substance.

Tom wrote:

I think the concept of essence is missing here. The Sun and Moon represent royalty in the sense of nobility not the sense of authority. Saturn is authority. Authority restricts freedom. Democracy increases it. Therefore democracy is more akin to Jupiter, a noble planet that encourages expansion and therefore liberty.

...The Sun and Moon represent royalty in the sense of nobility not the sense of authority...

Wherever do you get that idea regarding the Sun? On page 71 of CA, Lilly includes for the Sun [a selection from the full list]: Magistrates, High-Sheriffs, High-Constables, Stewards of Noblemen?s houses, the principle Magistrate of any City, Town Castle or Country Village; ?yea, though a petty Constable, where no better, or greater Officer is?.

The Sun does very much represent authority.

...Saturn is authority...

On page 59, Lilly's ?Quality of Men ? list for Saturn: ?In general he signifies Husbandman, Clowns [low-class peasants], Beggars, Day-labourers, Old men, Fathers, Grandfathers, Monks, Jesuits, Sectarists?.
For ?Profession?: ?Curriers, Night-farmers [sewer worker], Miners under ground, Tinners, Potters, Broom-men, Plumbers, Brick-makers, Malsters, Chimney-sweepers, Sextons of Churches, Bearers of dead corpses, Scavengers, Hostlers, Colliers, Carters, Gardeners, Ditchers, Chandlers, Dyers of black Cloth, a Herdsman, Shepherd or Cow-keeper.?

I find very little authority here.

...Authority restricts freedom. Democracy increases it. Therefore democracy is more akin to Jupiter, a noble planet that encourages expansion and therefore liberty.

The principle of authority doesn?t necessarily restrict the principle of freedom. Abuses of authority often restrict freedom, just as abuses of freedom call for the exercising of authority. Authority does not ensure denial of freedom. Authority upholds or sustains the law or agreed upon principles, but it doesn?t necessarily take away freedoms. Not all of our behavior options can be rightly called freedoms.

Democracy is also a kind of limitation and a source of restrictions (Saturn?s realm). Democracy is a form of government with laws that create societal structure. Democracy, like any form of government, is a Saturnine containment and shaping of a society?s dynamic force. ?Noble? Jupiter is a different principle, a principle that could lead to over-expansion and break-down through excess and lack of containment. I see here too much 'noble' Jupiter as good and 'Greater Malefic' Saturn as bad, ideas which do fit in with contemporary ideas of limitless freedom for the individual and a watchful eye on the assumed evils of government.

The opposite of monarchy is not democracy, it is anarchy, and Saturn does not rule democracy or anarchy.

A state ruled by a monarch could indeed be considered the opposite of government by the people. Anarchy opposes them both as lack of government. Authority does not ensure denial of freedom. Authority upholds or sustains the law or agreed upon principles. It doesn?t necessarily take away freedoms.

The more interesting opposition is that of Leo and Aquarius, Sun and Saturn. The opposition of both lights to Saturn could be considered, as the domicile of the Moon also opposes a domicile rulership of Saturn. The lights are the King and Queen ? the King and Queen within. Alchemical studies are filled with the concept. In astrology, a natal chart has one or the other as sect light. Of all the traditional astrological planets, these two are the most concerned with the individual. Saturn, as the planet whose domicile rulerships oppose the domiciles of these two bodies, restricts and limits them and they mature through the Saturn influence.

Here?s my view of the possible connection of Saturn to democracy: With Saturnine maturity, the individual is able to rise above preoccupations with the self and place that self in an active role within the whole. Democracy is not defined by what the individual receives from government, but by how the individual takes part in the government through the acceptance of individual duty. Saturn?s mature individuals are able to come together in warm, moist, sanguine, humane Aquarius to create democracy. Maybe the fact that Saturn is commonly said to be happiest in Aquarius shows that Saturn isn?t such a bad guy after all.

Saturns authority has to do with age more then power. I believe "authority" can be swaped for "respect" with regards to Saturn, or at least authority is bestowed by respect (from age).

As for the Luminaries, the Moon rules over Queens but also over common people. I believe the Moon would be represent Democracy, while there is an apointed figure, the common people are seen as the authority in this case. The fact that the Moon is also always changing and moving (astrological significationaly (if thats a word) speaking) would also supply democracy well for the constant change and movement of the countries rulers.

Of course politically, this is "fairy tale democracy" I am speaking of, not Western Democracy which is a quite different (and inappropriate topic for this board) story.

Hi,

I?ve missed this one! I have moved and been without internet connection fort he last 3 weeks.

What struck me with this chart was the prominence of Facies, the nebula in the face of the Archer. Bernadette Brady says about it: Facies is the penetrating stare of a lethal weapon. It is one of the most difficult and possibly most violent bodies in the heavens.
In the Roman Army, the archers? eyesight was tested with this nebula. If one could not see it, they were not admitted. (Facies is the Messier Object M22, a Globular Cluster, with a visual Magnitude of over 5, at a distance of 10,000 light years and a diameter of 24 minutes of arc, it is a huge object)
In Oswald?s chart, it appears twice which is rare. It makes paran aspects to both the Sun and the Ascendant. So, very personal in this chart.


Sun
Culminating when Facies is Rising
A piercing focus to the point of ruthlessness

Facies
Setting at the Descendant
The soldier, athlete, or the aggressor

(Interpretations from ?STARLIGHT?)

Cheers,
Ren?

What struck me with this chart was the prominence of Facies, the nebula in the face of the Archer. Bernadette Brady says about it: Facies is the penetrating stare of a lethal weapon. It is one of the most difficult and possibly most violent bodies in the heavens. In the Roman Army, the archers? eyesight was tested with this nebula. If one could not see it, they were not admitted.

Brady is at odds with Robson and Ptolemy on the meaning of this object, and although I haven't been a supporter of Brady's when she contradicts older authorities, on this one her observations are more logical, and Oswald's chart and experience seem to support her.

Robson gives this delineation of Facies:

It is of the nature of the Sun and Mars, and causes blindness, defective sight, sickess, accidents, and a violent death.

Brady counters with this:

All nebulae in astrology indicate blindness, as has already been discussed under the Pleiades in Taurus. However, this blanket statement is not that applicable in the modern astrologer's consulting room. In addition, keenness of eyesight is a physical feature of the archer, and thus it is logical that this nebula in the face of the Archer should be related to good eyesight or sharpness of eyesight.

The eyesight of the ancient archer was an expression of the quality of the weapon. One could never have nearsighted archers. " - Brady's Book of Fixed Stars, page 297

On this point Brady makes a lot more sense than the other delineations.

On page 240 of the same volume quoted above, Brady, under the heading of Alcyone, a prominent star in the Pleiades:

"In my practice, I've never felt on safe ground predicting eyesight problems with the placement of a nebula in the chart. However, I've found that the client will have a very strong desire to seek inner knowledge, and in a few cases the clinet has actually discussed the concept of a third eye."

Oswald's attempt to understand Marxism, successful or otherwise, superficial or profound, seems to me to be in line with Brady's observation of "seeking inner knowledge." Oswald was no intellectual depsite some reports that he had a high IQ. And his study of Marx and communism was an attempt, to find a place for himself in society even if it was as an outsider.

As for Oswald's eyesight, assassination consiracy buffs have made the claim that the shooting ability requried to make three shots from the 6th floor book depository were too difficult for Oswald. They base this on US Marine Corps records of Oswald's scores on the rifle range. As usual, these assertions are made by people with little or no understanding of military marksmanship testing and requirements or shooting in general.

Oswald reported for duty in the US Marine Corps on Oct 26, 1956. After training with the M-1 rifle, Oswald was tested On December 21, 1956, and scored a 212, two points higher than necessary to qualify as sharpshooter, the second highest rating in the Marines. The score indicates he could hit a ten-inch bullseye, from a standing position from a minimum of 200 yards, eight out of ten times without a scope. The weapon he used to kill Kennedy had a scope. Kennedy was about 100 yards from Oswald at the time of the shooting and with a 4X scope, Kennedy would have appeared to be about 25 yards away. It was an easy shot.

Oswald again qualifed in May 1959, after his courts martial and shortly before his discharge, with a score of 191 resulting in a rating of Marksman - slightly above average compared to an average adult male. Guess which score the conspiracy buffs report and which one they ignore? Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that he only had to qualify twice in 2 and one-half years. THere are probably other scores in his Marine Corps records with the lower ones finding their way into the conspiracy books.

Also Oswald was an occasional hunter. In Russia he joined a hunting club (a strange interest for a lousy shot) and on one occasion had a terrible time. It was subsequently learned that the sight on his gun was out of line. His brother, Robert, testified to the Warren comission that when they went hunting Lee almost always made his shot. The conspiracy buffs omit Robert's testimony and emphasize the single Russian Hunting trip without mentioning the defect with the rifle.

The evidence indicates Oswald was an excellent marksman with practice and it is known that he practiced before killing Kennedy (probably preparing for another attempt on General Edwin Walker's life). He never wore glasses and at age 24, there would be very little, if any normal physical deterioration due to age. In this case, it looks like the score is Brady -1: Ptolemy, Robson et al - 0.

Tom

In a previous post I mentioned, what I believe to be the most important aspect in Oswald's chart, the tight Mercury - Mars square. Quite by accident, and only today, I found this quote from Christian Astrology page 541. It begins by noting the "difficulties" associated with a poorly placed Mercury, but mentions a Mercury Mars square.

?Inconstant people, malicious, turbulent, envious, perfidious, liars, to purpose (?), if Mercury be with the south node, or in square of (sic) opposition of Moon or Mars, and in airy signs, ...

[it is not possible for Mercury and another planet to be square or opposite and both in air signs, therefore he must mean if one or the other is in an air sign or if Mercury alone is in an air sign - probably the latter, but I'm not certain]

... deceitful, inventing destructive plots and machinations, infamous, meddling with everybody and every matter, asses, dolts, prattling dotards, stammering coxcombs, good for nothing, etc.? [emphasis added]

The above is a frighteningly accurate description of Lee Harvey Oswald

Tom

Maybe this theory of "masculine/feminine" isn?t so necessary... there seens to me that there are others indications of unhapiness in this chart.

For example, both SAturn and Venus (in detriment) aspect the moon and the ASC. So I think this Venus in detriment and afflicted by conjunction with non dignified Saturn, is likely to be a significator of manners in the native.
We could also see mercury in detriment and under the beans of the sun and difficulty to think clearly and to take good decisions.

The luminar in the chart is in good condition, exalted in the 11th, but his dispositor is venus...

Maybe this theory of "masculine/feminine" isn?t so necessary...

I didn't mean to imply that it was necessary or even correct. I think it works pretty well with Oswald. Whether it works well with a lot more charts is the question.

The other thing that struck me is that Corre says to use this first and as the basis for the rest of the reading. This is what we would do with the temperament. So the question is this: assuming this "works" does it work as well as, better than, or not as well as the determination of temperament or should we be doing both? I don't have the answers to these questions; I'm only suggesting them.

For example, both Saturn and Venus (in detriment) aspect the moon and the ASC. So I think this Venus in detriment and afflicted by conjunction with non dignified Saturn, is likely to be a significator of manners in the native.

We could also see mercury in detriment and under the beans of the sun and difficulty to think clearly and to take good decisions

These are good points and I wondered if we could get to the same place as Corre did by different routes.

The other point is this: just because there is a conflict between the gender of the things that affect the ASC and the gender of the native, it does not follow that every such native is condemned to a difficult life. This is the point of noting Margaret Thatcher's chart. She found a way to use those masculine traits in a socially acceptable manner.

I'm working on another chart of a man whose behavior is way out of synch with the feminine dominance of his ASC. I'm trying to figure out how to look at this with Corre's method. I'll let you know what I come up with.

Tom

Marilyn Monroe comes immidiatedly to mind. Masculine Ascendant (Leo), masculine ruler (the Sun) in a masculine sign (Gemini) sextiling the Ascendant. Temperament is choleric/sanguine by the Greenbaum method, so predominantly hot (masculine).

Robert Corre is coming to give a weekend seminar in Helsinki, Finland in June!

Ruth's appettites were the stuff of legend. He ate enormous quantities of food; liquor didn't seem to effect him and he was sexually insatiable. Those stories are too lurid for this site. He was a great big kid who lived life they way every 14 year-old boy fantasizes about living it.

What interestests me in Ruth's chart is the strongly phlegmatic temperament - I think it fits very well with what you write here about him. They say that phlegmatic temperament is the one that is most attached with worldly enjoyments and this chart is one of those that prove it true. It's actually quite strange that in modern astrology phlegmatic/Water is connected with emotions or feelings, when it rather seems to have more to do with instincts.

I'll definitely be seeing Bob Corre, I'll be one of his hostesses and translate part of the seminar .