Martin Gansten wrote:[For anyone else possibly following this thread, if my previous post seems less than coherent, it is because parts of it were accidentally deleted by Michael in replying. Never mind.]

Thanks for your understanding. It was NOT because I didn't like what you had written!

Michael Sternbach wrote:Martin, I never said it was the only one. My sole purpose being to demonstrate that the zodiac was indeed the primary reference for the ancients, and that this assumption was anything but some kind of twentieth century fad.

What you actually did say was As our circle of reference is the zodiac anyway.

For determining aspects, specifically.

Which it is for many things, but not for all things, which is exactly the reason that paranatellonta were considered in the first place. But perhaps I misunderstood your intention.

Trust me, the information is in there! However, retrieving it might take a little more more than a quick glance, I'm afraid.

Well, I don't have time to search high and low for it at the moment, but if you find a primary source indisputably using 'rising with' in the sense of 'sharing the longitude of', do let me know.

Neither have I, I'm afraid. I seem to remember that one of references in Gundel (mentioned above) is on page 141, though. If memory serves, Gundel even goes as far as saying that, in many cases, so called paranatellonta should properly be called monomoiria.

Regarding latitude/winds, as you're keen on Ptolemy, I know he mentions it in I 24 and also in III 10 (using Robbins's chapter division), the latter in connection with directions. I don't have any other references at hand, but they are scattered here and there in the Greek literature. Riley's translation of Valens is searchable, so finding 'wind' there should be easy (although it will, of course, give a number of hits that are nothing to do with latitude).

Cool. Thanks.

I would maintain that fixed stars considered just according to their longitude work just fine.

If we are going to discuss what works, we'll probably need examples, as one astrologer's 'working fine' can be another's 'rubbish'.

Little in astrology is measurable or objectifiable. Of course, the same holds true for other areas of knowledge, e.g., for psychology.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

What you actually did say was As our circle of reference is the zodiac anyway.

For determining aspects, specifically.

Perhaps that is at the root of our difference? To me, as to ancient and medieval authors, a conjunction is not an aspect (and fixed stars don't cast aspects).

Little in astrology is measurable or objectifiable. Of course, the same holds true for other areas of knowledge, e.g., for psychology.

Don't let the psychologists hear you! But I actually disagree with regard to astrology. Personally I am almost exclusively interested in the prediction of objectively verifiable events and circumstances, and the traditional use of fixed stars seems to have been motivated largely by the desire to increase precision in such predictions.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:

What you actually did say was As our circle of reference is the zodiac anyway.

For determining aspects, specifically.

Perhaps that is at the root of our difference? To me, as to ancient and medieval authors, a conjunction is not an aspect (and fixed stars don't cast aspects).

I would say, it is and it isn't. Indeed, since "aspectare" means "to look towards", an argument can be made that two bodies occupying the same place can not "look towards" one another; rather, they are "meeting" each other.

But do we need to take this at face value, as in two celestial bodies sharing not just the same longitude (within the limits of their orbs, of course), but also the same latitude? The way I read Ptolemy, even though he considers latitude (only!) with regard to the conjunction, this is meant more as a reasonable suggestion than as a hard-and-fast rule.

I am well aware that some astrologers (including Robert Hand in his Horoscope Symbols, written some time before he turned trad) think of zodiacal positions as more of an approximation, and therefore advocate translating exact astronomical coordinates to our charts in a 1:1 manner. Overall, this is not a traditional approach (unless you wish to consider Babylonian astrology "traditional" ).

While I am sympathetic with those various efforts to help astrologers gain a better understanding of what is actually occurring in the sky (*nods to Cruiser1 a.k.a. Walter Pullen with his magnificient Astrolog freeware program*), I would emphasize that there are good reasons for astrology's traditional focus on the "abstraction" of the zodiac. In fact, they pertain to 'Platonic Idealism' as part of ancient natural philosophy and will be explored in detail in my forthcoming book.

As for the fixed stars casting aspects, I am sure you are aware that some astrologers take, besides conjunctions, also oppositions into account?

Little in astrology is measurable or objectifiable. Of course, the same holds true for other areas of knowledge, e.g., for psychology.

Don't let the psychologists hear you! But I actually disagree with regard to astrology. Personally I am almost exclusively interested in the prediction of objectively verifiable events and circumstances, and the traditional use of fixed stars seems to have been motivated largely by the desire to increase precision in such predictions.

Personally, I find this interesting, but again, my focus is not so much to "prove" empirically that astrology works, but rather to explore how it works; i.e., to investigate its underlying scientific and philosophical principles.

Michael Sternbach wrote:The way I read Ptolemy, even though he considers latitude (only!) with regard to the conjunction, this is meant more as a reasonable suggestion than as a hard-and-fast rule.

I'm not that concerned with Ptolemy, who I think was right about the method of directing but wrong about a lot of other things (including the zodiac). But I do think that bodies should be visibly close to each other in order to be considered conjunct ('joined together').

I would emphasize that there are good reasons for astrology's traditional focus on the "abstraction" of the zodiac.

That's just the point: I don't think such a focus is traditional, certainly not more traditional than being aware of and using other frames of reference. Attention to the horizon and meridian predates the use of the ecliptic and wasn't forgotten, which is why we have paranatellonta. Some Greek-language authors even speak of aspect angles calculated by ascensions (which I personally don't think useful, but they disprove the idea of everything being routinely reduced to the ecliptic).

As for the fixed stars casting aspects, I am sure you are aware that some astrologers take, besides conjunctions, also oppositions into account?

So do I, but again as a form of co-rising (or -setting, in this case), not as an aspect.

Martin wrote:

Personally I am almost exclusively interested in the prediction of objectively verifiable events and circumstances, and the traditional use of fixed stars seems to have been motivated largely by the desire to increase precision in such predictions.

Fixed stars have this meaning you mention Martin. I agree with you.
And also, they have an historical value for the definition of the Sidereal Vernal Point related to Aldebaran at 15 Tau and the True Ayanamsa related to Spica at 0 Libra.
According to the International Astronomical Union (IAU) the former zodiac coincided in 221 A.D, the latter in 285 A.D. Just pointing out what today's astronomers are claiming.
This is why I find it a misnomer to have people (Fagan/Bradley, DeLuce or Krishnamurti...) have their name on these values as it should be clear that it comes from the Fixed Stars.
And just scratching the surface here. If we add the Nutation (in longitude) accounting for perturbations in the position of the Vernal Point brought about by gravitational impact of our Sun and Moon upon the Earth, which is defined by the 106 terms of the 1980 IAU Theory of Nutation.
We are close to 'The Spanish Inn' - Inn where food is not served, where you only eat what you have brought. A meal that consists of eating what each guest has brought.
Figurative meaning: where everyone understands the meaning it brings.

On a side note, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have Neptune conjunct Spica. Should we call them for a better definition of the True Ayanamsa?

I have found another one struggling with the Fixed Stars.
The perfect candidate to redefine the SVP - Elon Musk MC conjunct Alderaban in opposition to Uranus conjunct Antares. But wait! His Tweeter account has been hacked and now flies under the name of Donald Musk. We knew he was burning the red lights but better, he now accelerates when he sees the pedestrian crossing. The NY Times reported that since he bought Twitter, there is an increase of 61% of antisemitic messages and 3,876 racial insults every day against Black people. And the common sense will again come from Europe. Says Thierry Breton, european digital commissioner 'The bird will fly within our rules'. A long awaited and overdue response to the madness of our world and the a-social medias. Sorry if I get carried away by the shadow of the Fixed Stars.

Martin:
First of all thanks for your reply.
You've said that fixed stars is one of the few astrological topics in which your prefer a 3d representation, over a table.
Which 3d representation do you use? Stellarium? One of the astro.com advanced chart tools?

Also, about f-stars co-rising, appearing early in the tradition.
Which Hellenistic / Medieval astrologers used it?
This refers to B. Brady's parans method I presume.
Truly I wasn't sure what were Brady's sources, if any.

How can you say that co-rising stars are often observable?
If I understand correctly, f.stars which co-rise would appear simultaneously near the AC and MC, or MC and DC, et cetera.
By casting a chart, surely I could spot these, but observation by eye, really?
I'm not even sure where exactly the MC is without my software


Michael:
Thanks for replying as well, was interesting to read. I've got most of it I think, but I've lost you two on several points there.

About some astrologers using exact oppositions to f-stars. If I remember right, Frawley does it, not sure about others. What do you think about this practice?
To me it seems less intuitive, for such a faint & far object as a fixed star. Conjunction feels more fitting.


Sorry for the late reply, hectic time in terms of work, life and the rest.

Dima Gur wrote:Michael:
Thanks for replying as well, was interesting to read. I've got most of it I think, but I've lost you too on several points there.

About some astrologers using exact oppositions to f-stars. If I remember right, Frawley does it, not sure about others. What do you think about this practice?
To me it seems less intuitive, for such a faint & far object as a fixed star. Conjunction feels more fitting.

Surely when we are looking at the trans-Saturnians, we are analyzing aspects of objects that are fainter yet than the fixed stars that are traditionally used in astrology?

But for the most part, I look at their conjunctions too. And when I decide to include fixed stars in a delineation, I will consider any and all of them that occupy a prominent position in the chart - not necessarily just the more easily observable ones.

Now if a fixed star is in conjunction with, say, the Moon, and the latter casts aspects to Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn, I assume that that fixed star's influence comes to bear on all those aspects.

Does that answer your question? If not, or if there's something else you would like me to elaborate on - just ask!

Dima Gur wrote:You've said that fixed stars is one of the few astrological topics in which your prefer a 3d representation, over a table.
Which 3d representation do you use? Stellarium? One of the astro.com advanced chart tools?

As I use Solar Fire out of many years' habit, I also make use of its Planetarium feature. It has a decidedly 'retro' look (at least in the creaking old version I'm using), somewhat like the animation in Monty Python's galaxy song, but it does the job. I'm sure there are more sophisticated tools, though. I had a look at one called Horoskopos not long ago, which looked promising.

Also, about f-stars co-rising, appearing early in the tradition.
Which Hellenistic / Medieval astrologers used it?

I think you'll find paranatellonta mentioned by most of them. Ptolemy definitely refers to them, and Teucer, and of course the Anonymous of 379. And I know there are references in the Arabic corpus as well, though I don't have them at my fingertips.

This refers to B. Brady's parans method I presume.
Truly I wasn't sure what were Brady's sources, if any.

I've been asked before if I use Brady's method, but as I haven't read any of her books, I'm not sure what her method is, so I can't tell. Speaking for myself, I look to the actual bodies of the stars: if they are near a planet, I call them conjunct; if they rise alongside a planet (or degree), I call them co-rising. It's not complicated.

How can you say that co-rising stars are often observable?
If I understand correctly, f.stars which co-rise would appear simultaneously near the AC and MC, or MC and DC, et cetera.

I don't think I said 'often'. With increasing light pollution, stars are getting harder to see all the time. But if you are watching the horizon, you can see if two lights appear around the same time, which is the whole idea of co-rising. (I'm not sure if ancient astrologers took notice of one star/planet culminating as another was rising. Perhaps they did, but that would be more difficult to determine.)

By casting a chart, surely I could spot these, but observation by eye, really?
I'm not even sure where exactly the MC is without my software

No, you can't see the ecliptic, so neither the ascendant nor the MC can be directly observed. You could spot a star/planet crossing the meridian, though, assuming you know which way is south.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Now if a fixed star is in conjunction with, say, the Moon, and the latter casts aspects to Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn, I assume that that fixed star's influence comes to bear on all those aspects.

As I recall, Porphyry and/or Rhetorius (using those names as convenient placeholders here) says more or less the same.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Surely when we are looking at the trans-Saturnians, we are analyzing aspects of objects that are fainter yet than the fixed stars that are traditionally used in astrology?

Good point, the f-stars are much further away though.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Now if a fixed star is in conjunction with, say, the Moon, and the latter casts aspects to Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn, I assume that that fixed star's influence comes to bear on all those aspects.

Hmmm, I always look at it in the following fashion:
Say Venus is cnj. Spica and Venus is in sextile to Mars and square to Jupiter, then I would consider Spica to bestow it's nature/influence on Venus and by extension Venus' aspects to other planets would be "colored" by this change in Venus' nature. Change for the good, in this case.

How would you interpret an opposition to a fixed star? Say, in contrast to a conjunction...

---

Martin:
Thanks for the Solar Fire tip, It's my main software so I'll definitely try it.

About authors which mention parans: interesting, I have anonymous 379 on my reading list, haven't got to it yet.
Teucer, wow, do we have a surviving text?

"rise alongside a planet (or degree)":
Do you mean something like Sun in 22 degrees of Taurus, rising in the 12th house, 4-deg-orb cnj. Algol?
Can you give an example or refer me to a primary or secondary source which explains?
Also, do you use it in tandem with f-stars being in heliacal rising/setting?

"I'm not sure if ancient astrologers took notice of one star/planet culminating as another was rising. Perhaps they did, but that would be more difficult to determine":
Was sure that this is what Parans is about. In Astrocartography and with some other astrologers explaining about f.stars, at least.
https://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/paran.html

Dima Gur wrote:Teucer, wow, do we have a surviving text?

There are fragments (although I'll admit right away I don't know if their authenticity has been questioned). James Holden translated some, I think in his Rhetorius volume.

"rise alongside a planet (or degree)":
Do you mean something like Sun in 22 degrees of Taurus, rising in the 12th house, 4-deg-orb cnj. Algol?
Can you give an example or refer me to a primary or secondary source which explains?
Also, do you use it in tandem with f-stars being in heliacal rising/setting?

I haven't paid much attention to heliacal rising/setting in practice (although I'm sure it's relevant, for planets as well as fixed stars), mainly due to the practical difficulty of determining the phenomenon with precision. But as for co-rising, here's an example I remember (from my latest book): 30 May 2014, 06:07 CEDT, 55N36, 13E00. If you cast it you will see that Mercury had just risen over the horizon, and so had the fixed star Castor (with less than a degree of altitude between them), although they were separated by 20 degrees of longitude.

Was sure that this is what Parans is about. In Astrocartography and with some other astrologers explaining about f.stars, at least.

That's [one of the reasons] why I always say paranatellonta or co-rising rather than 'paran'. The ancients can't be held responsible for modern changes in usage. Anatell?? in Greek means to rise (not to set or culminate); hence anatolē 'rising, east' – as in Anatolia, which is the land to the east, not to the west or up in the sky!

(Which is not to say that simultaneous angularity may not be important. Just reasoning from astrological first principles, it doesn't sound unlikely.)

Dima Gur wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:Surely when we are looking at the trans-Saturnians, we are analyzing aspects of objects that are fainter yet than the fixed stars that are traditionally used in astrology?

Good point, the f-stars are much further away though.

I don't think that an object's distance relates to its astrological influence, however, its magnitude does, among other factors.

That being said, IME not only trans-Saturnian planets, but also deep space objects that are invisible to the naked eye can be of significant influence in a natal chart in some cases.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Now if a fixed star is in conjunction with, say, the Moon, and the latter casts aspects to Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn, I assume that that fixed star's influence comes to bear on all those aspects.

Hmmm, I always look at it in the following fashion:
Say Venus is cnj. Spica and Venus is in sextile to Mars and square to Jupiter, then I would consider Spica to bestow it's nature/influence on Venus and by extension Venus' aspects to other planets would be "colored" by this change in Venus' nature. Change for the good, in this case.

Yes, that's in line with my own understanding.

How would you interpret an opposition to a fixed star? Say, in contrast to a conjunction...

While I may look at fixed stars aspects other than conjunctions on some occasions, I don't have enough experience with those to talk about the topic with any degree of confidence at this stage.

Generally, I will only take a planet's opposition to a fixed star into consideration if there's another planet conjunct to the latter. As discussed above.

One astrologer who was working with oppositions to fixed stars was Vivian Robson, though. If you are interested in this topic, you may want to check him out.