Skyscript Astrology Forum

Tara wrote:Eddy wrote;

... in defence of the researchers I must say that astrology quite often is presented through meanings of 'single configurations'.

Yes but Cleleia Romano in her article declares that having the Moon square the nodes was "the greatest calamity a person can face." And if I can quickly find seven charts with this configuration and see that those involved do not have "calamitous" lives, how much research went into her statement?

Tara

It is a pretty dramatic way to put it, which doesn't aid credibility much. Better to say what the old texts say, that the Moon is afflicted when it is in the quadriplicity of the Nodes.

True, but in defence of the researchers '.

Please, don?t feel the need to "defend" her because I am not attacking :-)

I am offering my general critique that I would offer to any of my students or colleagues as I had my share of doing research in several fields, I remember a thing or two.

I must say that astrology quite often is presented through meanings of 'single configurations

Exactly my point! I think this is not a good model of research in astrology.

For instance, the problem that Tara is pointing, to find charts with the nodes with no "calamity" or problem in it, could have hugely improved the research.

Other possibility would be to look for charts with "calamities" that didn?t have any aspects to the nodes.

with this, and also a full delineation of the natal charts, I think the work would be a great contribution to astrological research. For now, I think of it as promising, but I would not use in my astrological practice without further improvements in methodology, because I think the conclusions are too dependent on hindsight.

Best regards

yuzuru wrote:

True, but in defence of the researchers '.

Please, don?t feel the need to "defend" her because I am not attacking :-)

It wasn't meant as a response to an "attack" . I simply couldn't think up another synonymous word from my stack of words at the moment .

Single configurations can have some use but as they work out differently in combination with other issues I think they shouldn't contain many words.
They can have some value. Take for instance the researches of Gauquelin and the positions of planets to the angles.

Eddy wrote:

Single configurations can have some use but as they work out differently in combination with other issues I think they shouldn't contain many words. They can have some value. Take for instance the researches of Gauquelin and the positions of planets to the angles.

Absolutely! We have to start somewhere. But we have to be judicious in what we say. We should never damn people to "calamitous lives" based on a single aspect. That's irresponsible and doesn't help our credibility as astrologers either.

Tara

Tara wrote:I've just read the article by Cleleia Romano in which she says that "the Moon at the bendings may be the greatest calamity a person can face.?

I have to take strong exception to this statement. I did a quick run through some of my charts and found seven examples of family, friends and clients who have the Moon at the bendings. All of these people have experienced life's ups and downs to be sure, but none has had what anyone would call a "calamitous" life by any stretch of the imagination, and in fact I'd say that at least half of them have achieved more than average success and happiness in life.

Blanket statements based on a single configuration in a chart just do not hold water and can be very damaging.

Tara

I am in full agreement with this. Thank you Tara. It?s also the same for South Node conjunctions. There is no "calamity" or "evil" to speak of, when you go through your own data piece by piece.

Does that make me a "modern" astrologer in arms against Lilly. No. I use that system of dignities barring the Nodes. I look at strengths and weaknesses. But I don?t see disasters, bandits or hangings. Obviously the research is never ending and there are no easy answers.

There are instances which support misfortune and instances which support the opposite I have found.

The reason I started the thread in the way I did was to maintain a sense of continuity with the past and with accepted knowledge.

Agree or disagree with me;
Here are some things I am certain of so far from this discussion:

1.
Having planets placed on nodes or bendings is neither +ve nor -ve. I am certain of this, in and of itself, with regard to what Steven said in the last post about one testimony not being enough.
2.
Having the dispositors essentially dignified and away from dangerous houses, aspects, will also turn the nodal axis into a benific area.
3.
There is huge emphasis on each of the dispositors in both cases of SN and NN, though I am still not certain on the particular effect of each one; this is something I am sorting out, perhaps SN dispositor does take second place to the NN dispositor.

4. The fact that NN ultimately disposits to the SN is of no consequence. Unless there are other testimonies or debilities which are accidental.




More circumstantial propositions, you may test them for me disprove them if you want:

5. Planets with high dignity conjoined with the South Node may have bigger challenges, but are also able to reap rewards which are as great as the difficulty which is presented.


6. Ruler of the NN conjoined with the NN can be very unfortunate if squared by Saturn. Or with ruler of the 8th. Despite the fact that such a planet would be in essential dignity.