Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Tom,

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?d like some feedback for or against the method.

Hands down, I prefer your temperament/manners analysis of Oswald over Corre?s Ascendant hypothesis on gender confusion. In fact, Corre borrows portions of his Ascendant analysis from temperament technique, either without realizing it or without admitting it.

On his website, Corre?s ?gender confused? example (figure #3) is more easily explained through temperament and other traditional techniques. For his figure #3, I get a temperament of phlegmatic-melancholic with almost no choler (1 pt). Compare to (Tom?s) temperament analysis of Oswald ? again ?no choler?:

Temperament: I get a balance of melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine, with no choler using two different methods. In one method, Dorian Greenbaum?s melancholy slightly dominates. In the other, John Frawley?s modification of Lilly, phlegmatic slightly dominates. Both show some sanguine. Oswald could never hold even a menial job for any length of time. If phlegm represents the desire principle, he had a desire for recognition (Moon in Capricorn?), but lacked the discipline, the skills, and the education to fulfill his desires. His main desire was nothing less than being recognized as a major theorist of Marxism. He never finished high school. But here we see the conflict of the phlegmatic principle and the sanguine. He wanted to be an intellectual, but lacked the drive, (choler?) to become one.

Both Oswald and Corre?s alleged ?gender confused? man lack choler. Next compare to a similar ?feminine? dominated chart high in choler ? Arnold Schwarzenegger
http://astrodatabank.com/NM/SchwarzeneggerArnold.htm

Schwarzenegger has Cancer rising (same Asc as Oswald and Corre?s gender confused man). Schwarzenegger also has Moon in Capricorn (ditto Oswald), Venus in Cancer conj Asc and conj Mercury in Cancer which is partile conj Asc, partile trine Jupiter in Scorpio (their exalt lord). Feminine planets and feminine signs dominate Schwarzenegger?s Asc. For temperament I get choleric-phlegmatic. If ever there were a description of western society?s male gender stereotype choleric is it! (will, inexhaustible, optimistic, aggressive, assertive, take-charge, impatient, hates details )
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/temperament.html

There is the obvious question of whether Schwarzenegger?s body building and military prowess was compensation for gender confusion. It crosses over into the ridiculous when men can be labeled gender confused if they are athletic stars or join the military and are similarly labeled when they are neither athletic nor military bound. Schwarzenegger?s chart bears out athletic ?showman? and not gender confused. His MC exalt lord (Venus = show) is conj Asc trine Jupiter (MC Lord) in 5th, and Sun in Leo is in 1st house. Schwarzenegger admitted he turned to bodybuilding when he was young because he was shy and frightened of his strict father. Sun in Leo conj Saturn in 1st house can do this with or without Cancer rising or gender confusion.

I disagree with Corre presenting feminine sign Asc?s for men as problematic without regard for temperament ? he says ?a man having a feminine Ascendant - will create feelings of inadequacy. This can lead to issues of poor self-image and problems with self-esteem.? This may or may not apply to Schwarzenegger, we would have to ask him. The important point is that it can also apply to men with masculine Asc's. Bob Dylan has a masculine sign ascending (Sagittarius) and was consistently described as shy, bashful and fearful of fame.

Significator of manners plays a role, too. Schwarzenegger?s SOM is Mercury, angular, unafflicted, in friendly aspect to both benefics with reception. In contrast, Tom?s analysis of Oswald SOM is Mars,

Significator of the manners is the planet or planets that most engage Mercury and the Moon. That planet is Mars. Mars is the exaltation ruler of the Moon and the domicile ruler of Mercury. Mars is also in a partile square with Mercury. Mercury and the Moon are in an easy aspect, which shows the imagination and rational mind can work well together. But Moon is in her detriment, and Mercury is an accidental malefic via the square from Mars in 8 and gets no real help from the conjunction with Venus in her detriment. The Mars square to Mercury and the Moon in her fall with both Mars and the Moon being disposed by Saturn in fall point to difficulties with the proper functioning of the mind. Oswald may have had what we would call today learning disabilities. His journal, which he called his ?historic diary,? is replete with misspellings, horrible syntax, and no sense of style at all. It is the work of a semi literate. Yet, objective observers have called him, verbally ?articulate.? Posner referred to him as ?dyslexic,? this has become a catch all term for learning disabilities when the meaning of the word is simply, ?difficulty with reading.? Oswald read, or tired to read, voraciously.

In addition, the Oswald and Corre charts both have a fairly unusual configuration where the feeling planets and planets of soul (Moon, Venus, Lord Asc, Moon Lord - again, mostly temperament indices) are all seriously corrupted by Saturn. The Saturn affliction to Moon-Venus in the Corre example are obvious, however, in Oswald less so. His Venus is within orb of an out-of-sign opposition to Saturn, is besieged by ray and under beams (plus square Mars which has been mentioned by others). Oswald?s Moon is technically out of orb of a square to Saturn however it is within orb of a square to the Sun which is the Moon?s next applying aspect and the Sun is closely opposing detrimented Saturn. IMO, this pulls in the Moon square to Saturn.

In contrast, Schwarzenegger?s Moon, Venus, Lord Asc and Moon Lord are unafflicted. If we applied Corre's method we would have to say he is gender confused but found a healthy outlet therefore no problem. I consider that a bad application of psychological astrology because, 1) it cannot be verified so the astrologer can say whatever and, 2) it overlooks important factors in the chart that deny gender confusion.

Temperament/SOM dwarf Corre?s Asc polarity method. His polarity approach borrows temperament techniques but comes up short by not considering temperament in its entirety. Corruption of Moon, Venus, Lord Asc by Saturn gives hardship regardless of dominant Asc polarity. Oswald may have been gender confused, but the polarity method's seeming fit is most likely a fluke. His temperament lacks choler yet he expresses through a choleric planet, Mars SOM - passive temperament vs active SOM might partially explain the fluke.

Christina

Hi Christina,

I've been away and will only have occasional access to the Forum as I am currently on vacation. Then there is the time zone thing; I'm 11 hours after GMT. I am enjoying myself in Hawaii, Maui to be precise, and the Forum has taken a back seat to sun, beach and Mai Tai cocktails. Ahh the life of an itinerant astrologer.

I think you've nailed it on the Oswald - Corre charts. In fact you echoed my gut instincts only you backed it up. There is something in Corre's method that I found confusing. Refering to Arnold's body building you stated:

If we applied Corre's method we would have to say he is gender confused but found a healthy outlet therefore no problem.

When reading Corre I got the impression that the native needed find a constructive outlet for his feminine tendencies, not the opposite, which is what Arnold did. In other words, a constructive outlet might have been something considered at least gender neutral that was not masculine in nature. Say cooking or design work. Society will accept a male chef or designer of some kind and not question feminine tendencies.

Corre might argue, sensibly, that Arnold was "overcompensating" for his shyness and fear of his father. But then we go too quickly into pop psychology, and I like to stay away from that. He would say the same thing about Babe Ruth i.e., Ruth overcompensated by becoming a swaggering, carousing, blustering professional athlete. But Ruth's childhood, or what is known of it, doesn't seem to fit. He didn't become a professional athlete so much by choice or desire, as he was discovered and given his level of education, may have been somewhat surprised to learn people would pay him for playing a game. His upbringing was rough, and he was sent to St. Mary's Industrial School supposedly after being found to be "an incorrigible" at age 7! Feminine tendencies would not have emerged this way at that age. But there are so many legends concerning Ruth, and all the official documents are lost (St. Mary's sufferred a serious fire and all the records pertaining to Ruth's "stay" were destroyed in that fire).

Paperetis also hit the nail on the head when he said Ruth's phlegmatic temperament manifested by desire. He made, for the time, a lot of money and simply followed his desires whether it was eating, drinking, night life, or sex, the Babe did as he felt like doing. The phlegmatic temperament is the desire nature, and does a far better job of describing Ruth than explaining his behavior by judging it to be some kind of overcompensation for feminine leanings.

On the other hand, I think Corre's idea has some merit. It is part of the temperament, but doesn't go deep enough. It might give us something to look for or an idea to keep in the back of our minds, but since it does not go deep enough, it can be overridden, whereas temperament cannot. What has been discovered of Lee Harvey Oswald's life confirms the phlegmatic/melancholic temperament. He lost job after job and more often than not, he started out well enough, even showing promise, but could never stay with it for very long. Some other interest or desire took priority. There are other problems with his psyche as not everyone with that temperament ends up a killer. But the combination of his overbearing mother, lack of a good father figure, and perhaps having tendencies that were not socially acceptable were converted in his mind to things that brought about a horrible event.

Nice job as usual Christina.

Tom

Tom wrote: This thread is not the place for gassy knollers to vent their spleen.

"gassy" knollers??




Trish

"gassy" knollers??

Hi Trish,

Sure. As an FYI for folks who might not know. The "grassy knoll" is the place in Dealy Plaza where so many conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired at JFK. If this is true, then there must have been a conspiracy to kill him as Oswald fired from above and behind the motorcade. People who believe in any of the hundreds of conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK murder are collectively called "grassy knollers" whether they think shots were fired from the grassy knoll or not. In fact "grassy knollers" has been extended to include any conspiracy advocate of anything. The other descriptive noun is "buffs," which is short for "conspiracy buffs." Those who believe Oswald acted alone are subscribers to the "lone nut gunman theory." :-)

Tom

Tom wrote:

"gassy" knollers??

Hi Trish,

Sure. As an FYI for folks who might not know. The "grassy knoll" is the place in Dealy Plaza where so many conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired at JFK. If this is true, then there must have been a conspiracy to kill him as Oswald fired from above and behind the motorcade. People who believe in any of the hundreds of conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK murder are collectively called "grassy knollers" whether they think shots were fired from the grassy knoll or not. In fact "grassy knollers" has been extended to include any conspiracy advocate of anything. The other descriptive noun is "buffs," which is short for "conspiracy buffs." Those who believe Oswald acted alone are subscribers to the "lone nut gunman theory." :-)

Tom

Hi Tom: I was only laughing at the typo. As a further FYI, you meant "grassy knollers" not 'gassy knollers'.

Trish

I appreciated the explanation anyway !