posted February 12, 2013 11:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by quinnlycanastro:
I can see they're important etc, I think it's how they're used that I struggle to agree with....that, and what they actually mean :/

---

I agree....especially when how i view it`s importance's vastly different then what the most majority of other`s do.To be honest i don`t tie them as much about the past as most do,i guess we are all different but i view it more as taking lessons not learned from the past and overcoming those lessons sometime in the current or future situation.

posted February 12, 2013 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by quinnlycanastro:
Yes, I "get" my nodes, I just have problems with them because they've got Pluto squaring them lol.

---

Urgg @ Pluto being Square i have Pluto squaring them as well.

posted February 12, 2013 11:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DepTaurus:
Urgg @ Pluto being Square i have Pluto squaring them as well.

Pluto is a harsh one to have aspecting the node.

---

posted February 12, 2013 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

To calculate the nodes we have to remember that we're pretending the Earth is at the centre (center) of the universe because that's how we do regular natal astrology. As we stand [or sit] on the planet and look up to the sky the nodes are the points where the Sun and Moon cross paths. This gives us our first two clues about the nature of the nodes.

The nodes are calculated from an earthly personal perspective, like all other aspects of natal astrology. And this means it's connected to how we "see" things, or our particular way of viewing something that we can't quite get hold of. Astrology does this often ~ it gives us a relatively tangible explanation of things that we can't physically hold in our hands. And it tries to explain a few things that we can't always physically see.

---

That's just wrong... that blogger invoked an agnostic principle in her theory - that has no basis... This agnostic perspective simply doesn't work from this point of view - since "it's not about pretending that the Earth is the center of the Universe" - but our position in this Universe and the way it relates with external influences... Any astrological calculation revolves around "a point (person, event...what ever)" from planet Earth... and how that point is affected by constellations, stars, planets, asteroids and so on... wile in this equation "that point" is an extension of the universe... not vice versa... this being a basic principle in astrology.

------------------

[☼ ► ♊ ... ☾ ► ♈ ... Ⓐsc. ► ♋]

posted February 12, 2013 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by quinnlycanastro:
How is it an agnostic principle? It's how natal charts are done. In calculating the nodes from earth we're watching the sun and moon go around the earth ~ but the sun doesn't actually move.....

Heliocentric ~ does the chart from the position of the sun. Many practitioners of heliocentric astrology would claim that their method is the one that shows us our "true" role/place in the universe.

---

Actually, the Sun does move and we/Earth (and the others planets from our solar system) move with it - but it's not about that... the way she phrase it ("...we're pretending the Earth is at the centre (center) of the universe because that's how we do regular natal astrology.") - reminds me of ancient believes and similar claims about our place in this Universe - which are used as a mockery this days, a way to ridiculize something that revolves around a similar pattern. You can use even a square (like it's done in Vedic astrology) - that rotation is just an easier way to put things in perspective - Earth is point A and all the calculations are made based on that point - this is Astrology not Astronomy... if you use the Sun as a point of measure, or the black hole from our center of our galaxy or even the biggest black hole that can be taken as a center - you'd have to redefine astrology in terms of calculation... and might even need more than that for such calculations. Point being - this system works, but it's not meant to be taken literally - as you see it in the astrological chart figure... even if maybe once, it was taken in such way.

posted February 12, 2013 03:17 PM            

"reminds me of ancient believes and similar claims about our place in this Universe - which are used as a mockery this days, a way to ridiculize something that revolves around a similar pastern"

It's poking fun at best/worst, not mockery. Humans can be incredibly self centred/self orientated. There's bucket loads of information about this within psychology and sociobiology. I've known many that use astrology [and other stuff] as a means to bolster their own self importance.

posted February 12, 2013 03:22 PM            

You're using -agnostic- loosely. Also,less "...". Or you forgot you should form your arguments clearly?

posted February 12, 2013 03:46 PM            

I think it's interesting reading others' analyses of their own birth charts, especially when they know what they are talking about

But I wish the author had posted his/her birth chart here so I could follow the story better; I remain confused.

Illustrations for the visually-oriented

posted February 12, 2013 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by quinnlycanastro:
Astrology is based on astronomy. The planets aren't imaginary.

"reminds me of ancient believes and similar claims about our place in this Universe - which are used as a mockery this days, a way to ridiculize something that revolves around a similar pastern"

It's poking fun at best/worst, not mockery. Humans can be incredibly self centred/self orientated. There's bucket loads of information about this within psychology and sociobiology. I've known many that use astrology [and other stuff] as a means to bolster their own self importance.

People do take astrology literally. It works better as a symbolic language, but people most definitely take it literally.

---

When i said that it's not meant to be take literally - was referring to the astro chart figure and the calculation system... cause that's the main connection to your quote about Earth being the center of the universe . Astrologists used Astronomy for their calculations - but this system has no meaning whatsoever in Astronomy... after all they're both different fields of study whom share the same basis - where Astrology was useful only incidentally (some celestial discoveries) to Astronomy.

That "poke" worked as a turn-off in my case - sounded like "ok, i see this as bs, though - hear me out any way..." - so, it's related just to that part - cause i stopped there...