Paul, regarding your post in general:

Thanks for sharing your differentiated outlook on Einstein's chart. I feel that your idea that a planet in its fall is inclined to express itself in unorthodox or atypical ways is particularly worthy of consideration.

Unlike some other modern astrologers, I agree with you that we shouldn't throw any elements of traditional astrology out on the garbage as long as we haven't thoroughly explored them - especially those which have been an essential part of the art we cherish for centuries or millennia. This doesn't mean that we should take them at face value, but it's suggesting that there is indeed validity to them. Some modifications may be appropriate sometimes in light of the changes that humanity is subject to.

And yes, charts must certainly be studied in toto - even though it's sometimes remarkable what can be deduced even from singled out factors. Still, I wonder how many astrologers would recognize that the chart we are talking about belongs to an extraordinary scientific mind if they wouldn't know it in the first, even by reading the chart in depth.

Be that as it may, it is at times useful to look at certain factors more or less in isolation in pursuit of particular topics.

I would appreciate if you could also say something on Tesla's Saturn/Mercury conjunction, if you can find the time.

michaels pointed examples, pauls planetary phase comments and konrad's general overview.. thanks for all that.. i think martin pointing out how things look different using sidereal is a good point too.. all of it reminds me how astrology is more art then science..

if anyone knows of any literature that really focuses on the role of planetary phase in relation to the strength or weakness of a planets expression related to the sun, i'd be very curious. i had heard deb houlding was maybe going to write a book highlighting the inner planets planetary phase..

how much weight does one give planetary phase, verses 'tropical' or sidereal sign placement in terms of planetary strength or weakness? this is why i believe astrology is more art then science. there aren't going to be any hard and fast rules for this..

i am about 60 pages into lee lehmans recent book 'classical solar returns'.. it is too early for me to comment with conviction, but she discusses some issues that astronovice was curious about - natal verses relocated - and doesn't shy away from addressing more challenging issues confronting astrologers faced with a wide range of techniques to choose from today including the idea of relocation.. of that i am appreciative.

in the section i am reading now - on teddy roosevelt, she focuses on a 10 year period while showing how she interprets the various different natal solar returns for this period.. she skips over making direct connections between what i view as the most important consideration (between the natal and solar return chart) - the angles - by appearing to overlook when a planet in the natal would be conjunct, or very close to the same degree as the ascendant or midheaven angle in the solar return, and vice versa...

now, i need to qualify that teddy roosevelts chart has a B rating which makes working with data off angles more uncertain.. does anyone have the rectified time given for roosevelt by "Dr. H."?
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Roosevelt,_Teddy

in the solar return for 1904 when roosevelt was re-elected in a landslide as president of the usa, the degree of the solar return ascendant is 11 degrees leo, which is the same degree as natal saturn in roosevelts chart..the sr moon/pluto conjunction is also directly on or applying to natal jupiter/ascendant conjunction.. lehman doesn't discuss this any, but it got me to thinking about the importance of saturn in roosevelts chart and the idea of weak or strong malefics based only on sign position of a planet..roosevelts chart is interesting from this point of view of weak or strong malefics by only sign position and leaving out planetary phase.. mars in cap, moon in cancer, jupiter in gemini, saturn in leo - all worth considering when trying to understand the specific solar return charts better.. in roosevelts chart one notes immediately the commanding position of saturn in relation to the sun/mercury conjunction in scorpio.. this is called the upper square or dexter square i believe - i never use that term - and often shows up in charts i look at where a person achieves a greater level of worldly success and accomplishment.. if i didn't see this so often, i probably would have ignored it by now! it is what i refer to as a 10th solar house saturn position.. at any rate i think saturns position by planetary phase is strong in roosevelts chart.

does one fall back on the sign position as being the most important consideration for defining whether a planet is 'weak' or 'strong' or do they integrate sign position with planetary phase? does house position trump sign position or planetary phase, or are the inter-related aspects to a planet responsible for creating a more or less supportive environment for the specific planet to operate more effectively?

in the examples of einstein and tesla (another chart with a B rating - i have two different charts for him - http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Tesla%2C_Nikola ) one notes that mercury and saturn have a natural affinity for one another.. how does an astrologer factor this in? it is sort of my same question asked in the previous paragraph in the last sentence..

so, ultimately i go with konrads view even though i come to conclusions differently - astrology is an art that requires a consideration of a number of factors that don't allow for simple answers most of the time..

Just a quick note about Einstein...

Biographers always remember us that Einstein was a late speaker at his childhood, and his parents were worried he might be retarded. Some science historians even today believe that Einstein could have been dyslexic, schizofrenic or owner of Asperger's syndrom, all of these affecting somehow his brain.

Also, legend tells that Einstein himself was terrible with Mathematics, and that his wife helped him with this part of his work. He was good at physics and abstract thinking, but was not very good handling mathematical data and formulas.

Best Regards!

Michael Sternbach wrote:

But bear in mind that this particular question was raised by a Tropical astrologer on (as I believe) a Tropical forum regarding a Tropical chart, and was commented on by other Tropical astrologers, so I think it's quite adequate that we consider it in the Tropical zodiac.

Somewhere in recent months Deb posted a message to the effect that sidereal views were welcome anywhere on Skyscript. No forum is limited only to sidereal or tropical views. Even on the sidereal forum tropical views are posted now and then and are not censored. Deb's message supersedes any personal preference of moderators.

Yair Alon wrote:

Just a quick note about Einstein...

Biographers always remember us that Einstein was a late speaker at his childhood, and his parents were worried he might be retarded. Some science historians even today believe that Einstein could have been dyslexic, schizophrenic or owner of Asperger's syndrom, all of these affecting somehow his brain.

Also, legend tells that Einstein himself was terrible with Mathematics, and that his wife helped him with this part of his work. He was good at physics and abstract thinking, but was not very good handling mathematical data and formulas.

This then explains the otherwise puzzling position of Einstein's Mercury in sidereal Pisces. Einstein's Mercury reminds us that any zodiac sign position can have many possible expressions.

Considering the symbolism of Pisces, the Universal, Einstein's mind dwelt in realms far beyond what the rest of us can imagine or comprehend. Einstein was actually a mystic of sorts. He had a sidereal Pisces stellium: Sun, Mercury, Saturn, Venus (exalted). Note Piscean/Neptunian terminology in his quotes:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."
Albert Einstein

"A human being is a part of a whole called by us "universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature of its beauty."
Albert Einstein

Somewhere in recent months Deb posted a message to the effect that sidereal views were welcome anywhere on Skyscript. No forum is limited only to sidereal or tropical views. Even on the sidereal forum tropical views are posted now and then and are not censored. Deb's message supersedes any personal preference of moderators.

Please provide the link to that post.

There is a sidereal Forum for a reason. And it isn't just a personal preference. It's a matter of organization. Your personal preferences don't rule either. I can and will delete posts that I think are inappropriate. And once they're gone; they're gone. If something comes up in a thread where sidereal is appropriate that is one thing. If it becomes completely sidereal or a sidereal v Tropical it's going.

Tom, I'll find the post. It was in a communication with Mark. My last post on Einstein wasn't meant to be a vs. topic. Actually only today I thought about his universal and mystic attitude toward life. I think it's quite possible to post sidereal viewpoints now and then without it turning into a vs. platform. That isn't necessary at all, especially since a forum moderator, Martin Gansten, works from a sidereal point of view.

Recently Rumen Kolev has published his book, The Babylonian Astrolabe. A large part of the book is taken up with a description of the back and forth arguments of scholars on various points of Babylonian astronomy. This makes interesting and dynamic reading. This is the way that scholars work. Various viewpints are discussed and sometimes argued, but it's all in the name of science and progress and increased mutual understanding.

I don't plan on posting here very often. But it's indeed interesting that Einstein seems to have been more of a mystic than a mathematician.

From the Guidelines which are dated 2006. Actually it was before that:

This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers. ?Traditional astrology? is a pretty broad topic, so we?ll offer a rough definition as follows: the type of tropical astrology practiced prior to 1700 and everything between 1700 and Alan Leo is close enough to count as traditional with a few exceptions. This type of astrology uses the tropical zodiac table of dignities, planetary strength, and is somewhat more involved with events in the native?s life than with motivation for behavior. The accuracy of this definition is not important; it is only a guideline.

Please follow them.

Please let's not make tropical/sidereal a huge issue (again). But it must be noted that the definition of 'traditional' offered in the Guidelines is extremely problematic (or to put it bluntly, wrong), and should probably be updated. Otherwise, we can't discuss Valens, we can't discuss the Babylonians, we can't discuss the Persians, we have to be very picky about the Arabic sources, and we have to censure even parts of the Renaissance ones. (The Indians, of course, are right out.)

I don't remember the post Therese refers to, but I did discuss this briefly with Deb about a year and a half ago, following another unpleasant flare-up, at which time she replied as follows (this was in a private communication, but there's nothing personal in it, so I don't think she'll mind my quoting it):

Deb wrote:The sidereal forum is the place for dedicated discussion on those issues - not the only place it can be mentioned. I suggest you ignore that suggestion and carry on as before.

The operative word is "mentioned," A private conversation is not what I asked for. Besides there is nothing in that quote that wasn't mentioned by me earlier, to wit:

If something comes up in a thread where sidereal is appropriate that is one thing. If it becomes completely sidereal or a sidereal v Tropical it's going.

Martin writes:

Please let's not make tropical/sidereal a huge issue (again).

Yes please. But then you go ahead and do just that.

Otherwise, we can't discuss Valens, we can't discuss the Babylonians, we can't discuss the Persians, we have to be very picky about the Arabic sources, and we have to censure even parts of the Renaissance ones. (The Indians, of course, are right out.)

Yes the Indians are out. It is not the purpose of this Forum to be all things to all people. It was created so that Western Traditional Astrologers (and that term is defined) had a place to discuss Western Traditional astrology without being forced to defend themselves form moderns and others who preferred to pick fights than allow the discussions. We don't go wandering over to the General Nativities Forum and whine about not being able to discuss the essential dignities or present arguments in favor of Lilly over Leo. We do send moderns who do pick fights to the General Nativities section or toss them off the Forum for good.

Furthermore we have discussed Valens, Babylonians et al without difficulty for more than decade why should it become a problem now unless the siderealists make it one? There is a Sidereal Forum. It makes no sense that it needs to be brought over here, too. The purpose of the Traditional Forum does not include providing a captive audience for siderealists. Your arguments would make sense if the topic were completely forbidden, but it's not and it never was.

In order to comply with both of our wishes I'm locking this thread.

Apologies for my absence in recent weeks, which is likely to continue until the end of the month as I am heavily involved in building developments which have a tight deadline. Even when tied up in other things, I try to check the forum as often as I can to make sure there are no problems brewing, and hopefully this is one that can be nipped in the bud.
I see Martin and Theresa's point of view here, but I also think that Tom's reminder to not let the focus shift is appropriate too. Consider his comment:

If something comes up in a thread where sidereal is appropriate that is one thing. If it becomes completely sidereal or a sidereal v Tropical it's going.

Obviously there is no intention to prohibit reference to sidereal techniques or perspectives, although heaving read the thread through, I don't see why this has become an issue here anyway. Martin made a brief reference to the fact that "not all traditionalists use the same zodiac", as part of one of many highly informative contributions he has made to the thread. That remark was singled out for attention it didn't deserve IMO, when it would have been better to move on with the assumption that no one is trying to change the focus of the discussion or this forum's policies. Tom has not directed personal comments at any individual but given his reminder to follow the spirit of the guidelines, since this issue itself has now undermined the thread - a pity because it has some really good points being made about the significance of combust malefics. It would be so much better if everyone returned to that opening question, because just as we don't want to disrupt threads with zodiac debates, we also don't want to disrupt them with debates about zodiac debates.
Tom, I hope you don't mind me imputing my thoughts on this straight into the thread as I am not likely to be around later today. It goes without saying that you are the moderator here, and the one to decide if and when comments are appropriate or likely to cause disruption to the flow of the debate. As an active forum contributor myself (usually) I know that applies to my comments too, so feel free to remove this if you think I have spoken out of turn.

PS - I see I posted as Tom locked the thread. I didn't unlock it to post my remark, but perhaps it got through because I had my posters window open for a long time (I got distracted whilst responding). So I have only just seen Tom's response after posting my own.

I deleted the last two posts because they were off topic. What part of this:

I'm unlocking the thread with the understanding that the original topic be discussed.

is difficult to understand? If it happens again I'm locking the thread.