posted March 08, 2018 02:55 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by SecretGeek:
Why did you think asteroids were relevant?

---

Fixed Stars already serve the purpose asteroids are "intended" to do. Hell, even Arabic Lots.

posted March 08, 2018 02:56 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by margym0o:
I've always thought asteroids were irrelevant in the big picture because there should be enough of a story to tell with just the major planets and their aspects/houses. Chiron, sure, Juno, ok...a few others that are highly regarded but all these other funky ones I think just add unnecessary layers of complication. You can spin a story to be anything you want based on the asteroids you choose. Don't like how a relationship looks? Well add in a couple asteroids to support your theories. Trying to make a chart better than it is? Well add in a couple asteroids to sweeten the deal. It drives me nuts when I see people trying desperately trying to make someone their soulmate and they throw 10 irrelevant asteroids onto it and say "But look! Look! Confusious is conjunct Nempartitis!"...no. It's not happening. Stop trying to make it happen.

---

LMAOOO this is so true

posted March 08, 2018 03:34 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by SecretGeek:
Maybe you misread my question?

---

posted March 08, 2018 04:27 PM            

Others, not so much...I agree with the person above, I don't like it when people use the most random asteroids ever to make validations for stuff in their life. Like, you find the "Book" asteroid and say yeah i'm the best reader or you find the "piano" asteroid and say yeah i'm the best pianist. It's stupid and pretentious.
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy/astronomy/the-naming-asteroids

posted March 08, 2018 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hypatia238:
The interpretations of fixed stars are very ancient but usually very dark and negative and hard to relate to LOL....I prefer asteroids any day over fixed stars.

---

I don't think they had access to computers correlated to people and/or events. There could have been an ancient civilization that lived underground with computer technology when dinosaurs existed, but I doubt it. Or computer technology could have been brought over by aliens from a different galaxy. I doubt that too.

posted March 09, 2018 07:02 AM            

But then the question becomes "what about all the other hundreds of people who sew/love to sew but don't have this aspect? Well that can be asked about anything anywhere. Just like someone who is an artist but doesn't necessarily have many artistic aspects. There are people who learn things as a mere skill, which anyone can do, for anything. Just like all the people who learn the piano, yet don't know how to compose great symphonies and aren't really deeply inspired. Anyone can do anything. But there are particularities that stick out in all of us. Some of us have the soul of an engineer - some of us are trying to discover what it means to have the soul of an engineer. Some people have the soul of an artist - some aspire to have the soul of an artist, so do it to emulate some quality. Some people learn things simply because they can. Reasons are always different for each of us.

My brother in law, for example, dabbles in painting. He draws, sketches, writes poetry. (and can do other things). Yet, his sister also does the same thing, and she is the one known as the artist. On an unconscious level, it's understood that there's a difference between emulation and essence. People find his works uninspired, as if they have a mechanical flavor to them.

Aspiring and being. A skill vs a calling. These are all quite ambiguous concepts, of course. It does take finely tuned intuition and mental proficiency to see which as which, and if an asteroid is truly relevant, or not.

Also, your question could be reversed as well.
Instead, imagine: "Change My View: Fixed Stars are Irrelevant, asteroids Suffice."

And you also say:

quote:

---

Fixed Stars already serve the purpose asteroids are "intended" to do.

---

Sometimes that's how we can answer our own questions. Do we really understand fixed stars so well? If we think so, then where is our proof? How do we know we are not just saying something applies because we want it to?
Is the issue simply that asteroids aren't as well studied as fixed stars? And if so, how can we remedy this? By discrediting them? Or by continuing to study them, until we grasp them as "supposedly" well as we grasp fixed stars?

posted March 09, 2018 02:29 PM            

Robert Hand in conversation with Eric Francis, several years ago, spoke about his experience with asteroids and people's charts.

Fascinating interview, May 20, 2015.
Recorded in 2 parts, each over an hour long.
I think (if I recall correctly) he discusses the asteroids in the 2nd hour??).

So! Get out your mending basket, popcorn, some idle busy-work for your hands..., or, enjoy the audio to fill a long car trip?, and feast on insights over these two (three) hours.

- http://planetwaves.fm/interview-with-robert-hand/

Quoting program notes, content--
In this special edition of Planet Waves FM, you get to hear an extended conversation between me and Rob Hand, the dean of American astrology.
The original topic of the interview was the real position of the Catholic church on astrology.
We also cover the nature of Chiron and the minor planets, the age of minor planet discovery, how asteroids work,
and then we end up in a long conversation on the history of astrology.
This somewhat answers the questions, “What is Hellenistic astrology?” and “What is Medieval astrology?” and, “What is Persian astrology?”
This discussion is not edited — you have it in its original form.
The conversation began at 7:11 pm EDT on May 20, and took place between Kingston and Las Vegas.

- http://www.astro.com/people/hand_e.htm

I listened to that interview several years ago.

He said that the asteroids 'work' in some people's charts, and in others, they don't.

With my own chart, the asteroids are really creepy in the way they have spelled out parts of my life so clearly. I am an older person, so I had 'already' lived the major portion of my life.
(I had cleared my Chiron Return 50s+, was around age 55 when I became 'aware' of astrology. This allowed me a unique perspective on astrology and how it worked 'forensically' in my chart.)

I just 'have a knack' with the asteroids.
I have ACTUALLY been able to 'predict' events (world, nations), using my intuition with the asteroids.

I think that part of where people make mistakes is using them too literally? Holding the interpretations too shallowly or tightly.

They need a more loose 'associative' type of approach.

The other thing with asteroids too-- they work on a finer and higher-subtle vibrational field of energy.

When the early skywatchers observed the sky, they were only journaling what they saw, and, what was happening in the world-- the 'ancient' world.

They relied on the stars to actually guide their ships in travel (geography).

When we read the 'fixed star' interpretations, we are reading what was vital and key to THEM in those days. Like eyesight, blindness, poisons, treacherous men. They didn't have electricity-- used fume-y lamps in their hulls, and cabins. Lived in the wilds, the deserts.

Today, we have a much different world.

You have to coordinate what you 'read' ... with what *their* historic atmospheres and events were ... and somehow take the pith of truth, and apply this to our own modern life.

Also... when you read sentences that say things like, 'There's a DANGER that can arise' ... The word 'danger' is better-applied as 'There's an opportunity that could arise' ...

During some of the more modern time periods, there were colloquialisms popular in certain smaller regions of the country here. The word 'danger' was not 'life-threat you will be killed' ... it was used for indicating possible opportunities that 'might' take you somewhat off your track if you weren't aware it was there. Forewarned makes better readiness, and makes information easier to process 'as it comes'.