Exegesis Issue #20

Exegesis Digest Tue, 04 Jun 1996 Volume 1 Issue 20


Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 21:26:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Denis Daost <m-24443@mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: Exegesis Issue #3 (sign cusps, etc)

Hello everybody!

I begin my contributions to this mailing list by replying to a posting sent by Christopher Gragg, publicated in issue #3. I won't comment on everything in the posting now. I will respond to Christopher's thoughts about the orbs later on. Sorry for being almost two months late with my reply!!

On April 2, Chistopher Gragg [Christopher's Message] wrote:

I still have difficulties accepting the abrupt breaks between signs that most astrologers insist upon. For example, someone with a 29'59" Scorpio sun is considered mega-Scorpio, yet if she or he were born just a few minutes later s/he wouldn't be thought of as a Scorpio at all, but as a zero degree Sag.

Is it really so, that most astrologers accepts abrupt breaks? And is it really so, that most astrologers considers a 29sco59 Sun to be "mega-scorpio"? I surely don't. I think people born on a sign cusp are a mix of both signs.

Personally, I think a person with Sun at 0tau01 probably will be far more Taurean than Aries. However, I consider a person born at 29ari59 to be at least as Taurean as Arian. A person born at 0tau00 will probably be slightly more Taurean than Arian according to my experiences. This means that I consider the beginning of a sign to be slightly stronger than the end.

By the way, I use the same approach to the houses. I usually consider a planet within e.g. 2 degrees before the 9th cusp to be more "9th house" than "8th house", even though it's actually located in the 8th house. Maybe we ought to move all the cusps a bit backward (clockward)... This should also be in accordance with the discoveries by Michel Gauquelin.

While I think the influences of e.g. the 3rd house may begin a couple of degrees before the 3rd house cusp, I DON'T believe the effects of e.g. Gemini begin at 26-28 degrees in Taurus.

I'm not claiming that my approach is the "best" or most accurate. I also want to say that what's been said are mostly theoretical - and my theories are always under development. I still keep my mind wide-open to any other theories or experiences.

All this intense energy builds up only to vanish into thin air in an instant. It seems more rational to believe that the energy slowly dissipates, perhaps during the zero degree of the next sign. Having a 29' Taurus sun, I can't say that I feel much like a Gemini,

According to Astrolog, your Sun is at 29tau20. I don't think this is close enough to the cusp to make the Gemini influences to overshadow the Taurean ones. According to my way of working, I would say that your Sun is about 80-95% Taurus and only 5-20% Gemini. I think the 50-50 influence will occur at around 29tau40-29tau50. Of course all this is preliminary. If you had e.g. Mars at 1gem40 conjunct the Sun, it would probably make your Sun much more Gemini than otherwise. In the example, the Sun/Mars-midpoint would fall at 0gem30.

While I'm into midpoints, I could say that I think the fact the Sun is considered a stronger (more influencal) body than Mars, would indicate that the "real" midpoint would be slightly closer to the Sun than the 0gem30 mentioned above. I applicate similar theories for timing the moment when a transit is most influencial, and in this case I also consider the aspects. Let's take a natal planet is at 2sag00, and two transiting planets are at 1sag00 and 3LIB00 respectively. (Note that one is transiting by conjunction and the other one by sextile.) Let's suppose the two transiting planets move at an equal speed. Then the most influencial moment might be when the transiting bodies are at e.g. 0sag55 and 2lib55 respectively, since the conjunction is a stronger aspect than the sextile. (Otherwise one would assume that the most influencial moment is when the two transiting planets are at 1sag and 3lib, with the mid-point at 2sco.) I hope at least someone understands what I mean.

but I don't think the energy works in reverse, anyway. In other words, I don't think a 0' Gemini sun "bleeds" backwards toward Taurus, but I'm at least willing to consider that a 29' sun of any sort "bleeds" into the sign that follows. After all, doesn't 0' mean that the person is just beginning an experience with that sign, that the person really wants to "do" that sign, but is clueless how to approach it? That is what I was taught, anyway. This would explain such anomalies as Hitler being a 0' Taurus (Some Taurus, he was a lousy painter!); he acted much more like a 29' Aries (no offense intended toward you Martians out there). What is others' take on this? It seems that the vast majority of astrologers opt for the abrupt break scenario, though I haven't taken any opinion polls... [lots of text deleted]

Hitler has got Sun, a close Venus-Mars conjunction and Vertex in Taurus, while Mercury is the only planet in Aries. I think this makes him far more Taurean than Arian. In Hitler's case I think the Mars-Venus conjunction with its links to Saturn and Vertex, and the square from the Sun to IC/MC is the most influencal factors in his chart. Hmm...now I'm getting off-topic.

To summarize, I am NOT for the "abrupt break scenario" and I think most experienced astrologers feels the same (whatever "experienced" means). Not that I have taken any opinion poll or something... :-) Of course, there probably are plenty of astrologers (including experienced ones) who are FOR the "abrupt...".

Regards, Denis

PS: I hope you people have patience with the fact that I'm quite new to this mailing list, and that I have some "catching up" to do. As if it wasn't enough, I've been lying in bed for a week with fever, etc. Hopefully, I will soon start to reply to more recently posted postings.


Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996 their respective authors.

[Exegesis Top] [Table of Contents] [Next Issue]