Exegesis Volume 12 Issues #001-006


Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 01

Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:45:46 +1200
From: andre
Subject: [e] Re: Science and astrology debate



I just spent an entertaining 30 minutes reviewing your exchanges at

To other exegesis members, I want to say I recommend a look if you have
the time and inclination. Robert's thesis (with a fair bit of overlap
with Dale Huckeby's) will be familiar from Robert's recent posts here,
but Robert's presentation on bautforum (BF) is clear and concise.

Robert, I want to congratulate you on the clarity of your presentation,
and that you have maintained a conspicuously civilised tone in the face
of some mildly stupid responses. There's a lot of literature which
suggests this is exactly the right course for minorities to take when
engaging with a majority.

You're treading a well-worn path of engagement with the scientific
community (albeit I suspect BF consists of a large proportion of
"wannabe" scientists). The outcomes have been variable in the past, but
it'll be interesting to see what happens. Julienne Mullette's efforts at
convening a conference of astrologers and scientists some 15-20 years
ago come to mind...

If I might venture a suggestion or two...

(1) separate _your_ theory of astrology from the problem of a workable
theory of astrology _in general_.

By placing yourself on that forum you are implicitly "representative" of
astrologers in general, and should not make it sound as though there is
only one perspective of how astrology might work. Obviously you should
discuss and present the ideas with which you are most familiar. I merely
suggest you be careful to present it as one possible approach, which you
are developing.

Of course I realise you invited us all to participate if we want. OTOH,
nothing weakens a minority's presentation of its case more than the
minority openly disagreeing within its own ranks!

Considering it is a "scientific" forum, it might be wise to be careful
about using the term "theory" when "an interlinked set of hypotheses"
might be more accurate.

(2) gravitational waves: I almost responded to this when you first
announced "cosmetrics" (a term lamentably similar in concept and sound
to my "astrometrics", which I mentioned in passing last year, but no

In my youth I had a reasonably thorough understanding of general
relativity (GR). Gravitational waves (GW) are a prediction of GR, but have
not been detected to date. Moreover, as I recall the mathematics, the
influence of e.g. a rapidly rotating binary star pair (both collapsed
neutron stars) at many light years distance would produce more powerful
waves than the Earth/Moon pairing you alluded to. I'm not sure, actually,
there is anything within the solar system that would be considered
capable of generating GW.

You might went to try a google search on GW to clarify this question.

Further, once you start talking harmonics - on the basis of a phenomenon
that has been predicted but not detected - you start to push speculation
too far IMHO. There's no problem with that on _this_ forum, but it could
alienate minds on BF that would otherwise be cautiously open.

Also, I suspect it would be better to leave aside details such as
"houses, aspects" etc. These may confuse the primary issue at this stage,
since (a) few there will understand the terms; (b) we have only
speculative accounts to offer in justifying these aspects of
astrological lore.

Finally, you may encounter one or two highly qualified mathematicians on
BF. It might be wise to water down any suggestion you have a mature
(or even nascent) mathematical account of astrology to offer - unless of
course you have one!!

Congratulations again on what you are doing. You are, I think,
presenting astrology well, with a sober, open-minded, flexible,
well-reasoned approach.

Andre Donnell.


End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 1


Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 02

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 13:49:04 +1100 (EST)
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Astrology and Gravity


Hi Andre
  Thank you for your helpful comments.  I hope others can also discuss.
  Regarding gravity, I did not use the term 'gravity waves.'  My intention was to describe how the gravitational relations between earth and other planets have a sine-wave-like form with analogy to musical harmonics.  To me, this idea manifests in the sinusoidal paths of the aspects between the outer planets, and is apparent in many empirical relations.  To me is a basis of harmonic mathematics. In an earlier post I offered to share diagrams which illustrate this observation.  I am happy to put these Excel charts and tables on the internet but I would need assistance to do so.
  In The Scientific Basis of Astrology by Percy Seymour, he has a diagram (page 112) illustrating the relation between sun, moon and earth at full and neap tides.  The two diagrams show that highest tides occur when sun and moon are conjunct or opposite, while smallest tides are when sun and moon are square.  The graphed path of tide heights has a wave function which is dependent on gravity but is not the gravity waves observed by relativity.  This illustrates the sense in which the rhythms of astrology have a wave-like form which arises from gravity.  Think of our minds as fractals of the tides.
  A great example of a planetary wave-like event caused by gravity is described by Seymour on page 128.
  "Another effect of the gravitational tug of the planets on our Earth is to cause a small change in the ellipticity of its orbit over long periods of time.  Jupiter is the main contributor to these effects, with Saturn playing a much smaller role, and the other planets playing only a very small part. This is reflected in slight changes in temperature on Earth's surface.  This in turn gives rise to fluctuations in the annual populations of certain species of micro-organisms."
  My hunch is that the changes in ellipticity would have wave-like patterns like the tides, possibly with 'full ellipse' when Jupiter and Saturn are conjunct or opposite and 'neap ellipse' when they are square.
  Robert Tulip

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 2


Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 03

Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:46:43 +1200
From: andre
Subject: [e] Re: Astrology and gravity


Hi Robert,

>   Regarding gravity, I did not use the term 'gravity waves.'

     Absolutely right. I reviewed your post 11 (71) concerning
cosmetrics. I had only skimmed through that section previously, and as a
former physics student I picked up your terms such as "wave physics" and
"gravity vectors", and arrived at a destination you evidently didn't

> between earth and other planets have a sine-wave-like form with analogy to musical harmonics.

     Two comments. Addey (1976) might well appreciate your acknowledgement
of his application of harmonics to astrology.

[Addey, J. (1976). Harmonics in astrology: An introductory textbook to
the new understanding of an old science. Wisconsin, USA: Cambridge

     In 11 (71) you wrote, in part, "The planets occupy an intermediate
niche on the cosmic scale, having regular ‘tidal’ relations with earth
which can be mapped as the harmonic field of the planetary helix.  The
planetary chart illustrates the gravitational vectors connecting earth
with each planet.  These vectors oscillate according to mutual cycles,
and can be considered as waves due to the steady orbital patterns of
planetary motion.  The wave-like relations between the planets produce
the sinusoidal structure of outer planetary aspects...".

     I now also see that we are on _almost_ the same page, because in 11
(23) I wrote, in part:

=========== start quote ===============
"As such, the mediator of "planetary influence" may not need to be found
in living organisms at all.  The earth itself is a very good detector of
what the other planets are doing.  Anyone on the list who has ever
written an ephemeris program will know what I mean about planetary

The only thing I've got to hand right now is an old paper by Pulkinnern
and Van Flandern (1979) from the U.S. Naval Observatory.  They published
low precision formulae for calculating planetary positions, the
precision being one heliocentric arc-minute (so not always as good at
that converted to geocentric coordinates).  Even at this low level the
effect of Venus, Mars and Jupiter on the Earth's position are quite
apparent in the equations.

That's quite interesting as I remember reading an objection to astrology
many years ago to the effect that "the gravitational influence of the
doctor and nurses on a newborn baby far exceed the influence of Jupiter".

However if even part of our global community of living organisms are
sensitive to small variations in the earth itself, then as participants
in a dynamical system _all_ organisms are potentially able to sense
these variations.  (What variations?  The most obvious would be day and
year variations, and the tilt of the Earth with respect to the Sun).

The question then is simply do they need to, which is what my ramblings
of last night were about.  Adding to that though, I guess over our long
evolutionary histories, encompassing - for example - periods of global
warming and cooling, there _might_ be good evolutionary reasons for
organisms to be sensitised to even _very_ long and _very_ subtle cycles."

========= end quote =================

     Your idea then does not differ essentially from mine, except that
you have added to it harmonics in an attempt to account for aspects.
(Incidentally, you might be interested to look at some of Mary Downing's
posts, in early volumes of Exegesis. I'm fairly sure she developed
visual heliocentric and geocentric charts similar to what you describe.
I also have done something similar - under "astrometrics" - but for
different purposes than yours or Mary's).

     A little about harmonics below, but first your quote from Seymour:

>   "Another effect of the gravitational tug of the planets on our Earth
> is to cause a small change in the ellipticity of its orbit over long
> periods of time.  Jupiter is the main contributor to these effects,
> with Saturn playing a much smaller role, and the other planets playing
> only a very small part. This is reflected in slight changes in temperature
> on Earth's surface.  This in turn gives rise to fluctuations in the annual
> populations of certain species of micro-organisms."

     I was struck by this quote for two reasons.

     Firstly, "my" idea that 'the _Earth_ (not us) is the detector that
accounts for planetary influence' looks like it is more properly
attributed to Seymour - that is, supposing he was thinking - as I was - of
locating the primary mechanism in the Earth rather than in us. Could we
have a reference please?

     Secondly, the last sentence in your quote from Seymour ties in directly
with my suggestion (paragraph four quoted above) "However if even part
of our global community of living organisms are sensitive to small
variations in the earth itself, then as participants in a dynamical
system _all_ organisms are potentially able to sense these variations".

     I need hardly point out - but I will anyway! - that the causal
chain is complete! Thanks to the food chain, even if it should emerge
that _only_ "certain species of micro-organisms" are sensitive to the
perturbations generated by the planets, the down-stream effects of these
micro-organisms on large terrestrial organisms is all that is needed to
provide _a_ possible astrological mechanism. Let me call this minimal -
micro-organisms only - mechanism M0 (where M1, 2, 3 etc would denote
progressively larger organisms with direct sensitivity to planetary
effects on the earth, such as some shellfish).

     As a potential explanation of astrological influence, the mechanism
M0 must have these properties:

(a) life on earth - and for our purposes _human_ life - must be linked
to these micro-organims in some way;

(b) the linkage should probably be non-linear, and must be a fairly
rapid effect to substantiate the doctrine of transits as presently

(c) the non-linear linkage must be "positive feedback", not "negative".
Positive feedback increases an effect; negative feedback suppresses it.

     I alluded - in posts following 11 (23) - to the possibility of
creating a computer simulation of 'Earth as the detector' idea. Dale and
I have discussed this further, and your quote from Seymour adds more
weight to the idea this should be done.

     Note: As a corollary of M0, one would predict that astrological
effects fluctuate with populations. Populations with no direct
sensitivity must overlap with those that do in order to get tied in.
Such links are bound to have been broken at times. Lack of evidence for
this prediction would suggest some higher version (M1, 2, 3...) is the
right one.


In 11 (71) you further wrote:

" Within a stable planetary system such as ours, gravity can be modeled
for analysis using the harmonic wave structures of music. In music,
natural harmonics of wave physics produce cycles of fifths, complex
harmonies of thirds and sevenths, and eventually the natural scale.  For
the planets, the conjunction can be compared to a unison of planetary
energies.  Continuing the musical analogy, the sextile is the second,
the square the minor third, the trine the major third, and the
opposition the perfect fifth.".

     Harmonics certainly have a sound basis in physics, as in music.
However, I have always been somewhat troubled by Addey's application of
the idea to astrology, and particularly so by the way it's been applied
after Addey.  I am not (yet) reassured by your attempt to justify it,
and I would be disinclined _at this point_ to present it to a scientific

     Firstly though, let me commend you. I have taken the gravitational
effects (perturbations) of the planets upon each other as merely givens,
and have simply concerned myself with their (your term) "vector"
properties such as magnitude, and of course with their regularity,
especially in terms of Dale's (especially Dale's!) and my ideas about
planets and time. My concern has been most directly with the issue of
how this could add up to a "signal", detectable by (and used by) life on
earth. You, OTOH, have lingered a little longer at solar system level.
You have conceptualised and modelled the effects in a more visual and
one might say holistic way. As such, you have quite rightly identified a
wave-like pattern to the interplay of gravitational forces.

     The relation between any one body and the other bodies in an
n-bodygravitational system certainly has a "sine-wave-like form". One
can see this _explicitly_ and quantitatively in Pulkkinen and Van
Flandern's 1979 paper, as it applies to orbital position (and,
equivalently, orbital speed) [ref at end of this post, with the names
the right way around and correctly spelt!].

     Here's an example (I have removed some irrelavent detail), in terms
of Jupiter's orbital longitude about the Sun. The numbers represent

     Jupiter = jup
               + 19934 sin (jupiter)
               + 5023 T
               + 2511
               + 1093 cos (jupiter + saturn)
               + 9 sin (2*jupiter - 6*saturn+ 3*uranus)
               + ...

     As one can see, both sine and cosine terms (i.e., waves) are
involved, and interestingly the position of Jupiter is partially
dependent on the positions of Saturn and Uranus. This means (for example)
the possible influence of Uranus on the Earth isn't just the "direct"
one. Its effect is also transmitted through Jupiter, and indeed the
other planets. Generally, all bodies in a system communicate something
about themselves through each other.

     It is at least approximately true to say that in any n-planet
system - let's say nine planets - every planet has eight indirect
channels (the other eight planets) as well as one direct channel (itself)
to communicate an effect.

     Ok, so there is a sine-wave-like effect in terms of planetary
positions and speeds. However, I'm not sure this is what you (Robert)
mean. In my first quotation from your cosmetrics post, you explicitly
speak in terms of vectors: "...gravitational vectors [connect] earth
with each planet.  These vectors oscillate according to mutual cycles,
and can be considered as waves due to the steady orbital patterns of
planetary motion". From this I take it you are alluding to the effect of
each planet _directly_ on the Earth. In vector terms, the gravitational
magnitude oscillates with distance (d) in proportion to the relation 1 /
d^2 (d-squared). Because it is d-squared, not d, the wave pattern is not
symmetrical; rather it resembles a highly eccentric ellipse with the
Earth at one of the two foci. Put another way, the gravitational
magnitude will be strong at the point of nearest approach, but falls off
_rapidly_ elsewhere in its orbit. Moreover, as the periods of the
planets differ from each other, the resulting patterns are highly
complex: especially for those planets with reasonably similar periods.
The appropriate mathematics here is that of Fourier transforms.

     Indeed, let me say in passing the "harmonics" that _really_
interest me - as a possible justification for aspects -  are those
concerning the interaction of the periods. For example, how many Mercury
cycles fit into an Earth cycle? (Very close to four). How many Venus
cycles? (1.6, or 8/5). Then, looking at surrogate effects, how many
Venus cycles fit into Mars? (Very close to three). And so on.

     It may be this is what you mean, as I think such relationships
ought to be very clear in the charts you have described; but if so, I
haven't understood this from what you have written. (Btw, I _would_ like
to receive copies of these charts, as it will probably clarify your
meaning for me).

     All this, however, is not quite "harmonics" as the term is meant in
wave physics or in music. Harmonics properly concerns the vibrational
modes of gross physical systems such as rods and strings. A string will
vibrate at its "fundamental" frequency (e.g. middle-C), and will also
vibrate at double the frequency, triple and so on. This produces the
series 1f, 2f, ..Lf, where L is the limit for the particular rod or
string (considering factors such as rigidity/elasticity, etc).

     Now, if we go back to an early formulation (it's so long ago I
don't recall the source) of the harmonics/astrology idea, it was that
there the zodiac (or perhaps the paths of the planets was meant) are
like a wave, and that as such we could immediately introduce harmonics
to explain the traditional aspects and introduce many more. My problem
with all this was - what is it that was "waving"? Surely not the
elliptical orbit (an abstraction!). Space-time perhaps? Dubious!

     Fortunately, your formulation is much better than this. If my
interpretation of your statements is correct, what you are saying is the
Earth that is "waving" thanks to the gravitational vectors of the Sun,
Moon, and other planets. This is, of course, completely correct.

     However, this does _not_ mean (and I doubt it's what you mean
either) that the Earth will then sympathetically wave at 2f, 3f, and so
on. Nor does this get us closer to an explanation of aspects.

     Alternatively, in your latest post you allude to full and neap
tides. This is something I have considered in the past as a
justification for oppositions and squares, but discarded on the
_assumption_ that astrology provides evidence for trines and sextiles

     I am troubled also that, again in your latest post, you seem to imply
that you built the aspects in to your charts: "To me, this idea
manifests in the sinusoidal paths of the aspects between the outer
planets". If we want to _explain_ aspects, we cannot of course _begin_
with them. We would like to _derive_ them from some formulation or set
of principles with sound theoretical bases.

     Next, I just cannot accept this statement (similar versions of
which I have read elsewhere, many times): "For the planets, the
conjunction can be compared to a unison of planetary energies.
Continuing the musical analogy, the sextile is the second, the square
the minor third, the trine the major third, and the opposition the
perfect fifth.".

     You are right to describe this as a musical analogy, but I don't
understand how this is an _explanation_, or a useful theory. How does
_analogy_ help us? How does an aspect such as the Sextile _emerge_ from
your wave formulation? What qualities or properties do you predict it
has as distinct from other aspects? What factors in the "mathematics"
account for the different properties of different aspects, if they
differ at all? And what ties these "aspects" or "harmonics" to the
zodiacal positions (longitudes) commonly used to calculate aspects and
harmonics in a chart?

     I have, over the years, considered a number of possible
explanations of aspects (the period-period comparison is one), but none
that seem likely to map directly and simply onto aspects (or harmonics)
as currently used. Instead, considerable change would be needed to our
techniques. This is, together with one or two other problems, a
considerable challenge in formulating a complete astrological theory.

     Finaly, it may well be I have missed the crucial or real points in
your arguments. I look forward to your clarifications. If I might make
an observation, devices (such as analogies) intended to clarify or
vividly illustrate arguments sometimes act to confuse the audience,
especially when they're your peer group (and even when they are students,
in my experience)!

     Best wishes, Andre.

     Flandern, T. C. Van-., & Pulkkinen, K. F. (1979). Low-precision
formulae for planetary positions. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement
Series, 41, 391-411.


End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3


Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 04

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:30:20 +1100 (EST)
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Almanac 99-08


Thanks Andre
  I have sent you the charts as requested on an excel spreadsheet, Almanac 99-08, that I have created.  I would be interested to know know if these charts are familiar to you from other sources and if they make sense.  They plot the planets over time against a Y axis where each unit is thirty degrees in the sky, not calibrated for signs, so present a ready format to see all aspects.  All material is purely empirical without interpretive content.
  The charts are
  1. Planets 99-08: positions of all planets over ten years viewed from earth
  2. Sun Aspects 99-08: Same as (1) with sun set to zero
  3. Outer Planet Aspects: Relations between Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, showing wave-like patterns caused by retrogression
  4. Aspects 2001-03: Time Slice of (2) with most aspects shown
  5. Aspects 2007-08: as for (4)
  6. Aquarius 2007: Month chart
  7. Pisces 2007: Month Chart
  8. Outer Planet Aspects 0708: Detail from (3)
  9: Mars Aspects: Tracking Mars against outer planets
  10-13: Source tables
  The quote from Percy Seymour is from The Scientific Basis of Astrology, page 128.
  My familiarity with John Addey is mainly from his essay 'Astrology Reborn' in AT Mann's remarkable collection 'The Future of Astrology'.  I was aware that Addey had a harmonic theory, and you are quite right I should have referenced it, although I did not draw on it directly.
Will follow up on other matters later.

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 4


Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 05

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:37:30 +1100 (EST)
From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Saturn Neptune


Saturn Neptune
  Are people interested in the current Saturn-Neptune opposition?
  This opposition sits exactly on my natal Saturn at 19.09 Aquarius, with both Saturn and Neptune going back and forth in transit.  (d.o.b.23.03.63, 0315hrs, Sydney Australia, stellium Saturn, Ascendant, Moon, Venus).  The question I have here is that Robert Hand, in Planets in Transit, recommends adjusting transit dates for precession of the equinox.  By Hand’s method, the Neptune and Saturn transits of my natal Saturn occur at 19.49 Aquarius, about thirty minutes of arc later, giving a very different date for the exact alignment from the uncorrected transit.  E.g., Neptune reached 19.09 Aquarius on 30 January, and 19.49 Aquarius on 17 February, a difference of 19 days, while Saturn is opposite 19.49 Aquarius on 6 March and gets to 19.09 on 17 March, eleven days later.  Is this level of accuracy important, and should transit dates be adjusted for precession?
  A site I read has the following comments for February 28, Saturn opposes Neptune: “In this opposition, realistic Saturn is challenging idealistic Neptune to put in the hard work so that you can manifest your dreams. Last year on August 31, the first of three oppositions took place. Back then you had a chance to assess your life and see where necessary changes needed to occur. Letting go of fantasies is a part of this period. At this second pass, take time to step back and analyze what it is that you need to do to move yourself forward and live the life of your dreams. Have you left your fantasy life behind? Watch out for denial. This is still the middle of the process though so don't expect changes overnight! The third of this opposition series takes place on June 25 this year, when you will begin to get your ducks in a row.”
  I would be interested in people’s thoughts on this interpretation.  It is from http://www.astrology.com/allaboutyou/message/index.html?nlcid=at|02-26-2007|

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 5


Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 06

Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:58:22 +0000
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: Saturn Neptune (Robert Tulip)


Hi Robert,
Every astrologer develops their own style as a consequence of the
feedback loops set up between the theory of what has been picked up
from books/teachings and the experience of actual practice. It is
similar to artists in this regard, and in my experience to science

So, having said that, my own style does not include adjusting for
precession with transits, and as far as I am aware this may be the
norm especially for those using the tropical zodiac.

Also, the use of orbs in interpreting the timing of transit-associated
events loosens any dependence on exactitude particularly with outer
planet transits. So the 30' discrepancy is not as problematical as it
may first seem, because commonly astrologers use an orb of 60' or so
either side of exact within which the transit is said to be active.

Traditionally in modern astrology, the timing correlation between
outer planet transits and associated events is linked to other
coincident transits from faster moving planet symbols. These are
considered to function as 'triggers' for events connected to the outer
planet transit symbolism. So for example, at some point in the not too
distant future, Mars will cross 19 degrees Aquarius, 'amplifying' the
alignment of the Saturn-Neptune opposition to your radix Saturn.

The interpretation you included is a bit simplistic, but perhaps
that's to be expected given the nature of the source. It's not very
helpful to say "Watch out for denial"! On the other hand, the
differentiation between the three phases of the transit which the
source mentions is an important point in my opinion (and experience).

I have found that the first phase of the transit coincides with the
emergence of the associated issues. This is usually the most
challenging phase, as it is generally not expected and can bring
confusion. The middle phase often coincides with a reprise of the
theme, as if to say "OK, did you learn anything from the first
phase?". It's a bit like a test. The final phase is either a crisis
brought on by not having learned anything (the denial you're supposed
to be watching out for!), or a time of resolution when it becomes
clear that what has been learned has 'bedded in' and is being put to
good use. Either way there is usually realisation. It's a question of
the quality of the experience, depending on when one rises to the
challenge or achieves breakthrough via a problematical crisis.

As an alternative interpretation of the symbolism, I'd say that the
fact you are asking the question is symptomatic. Saturn would be
associated with limits, order and structure, to which issues such as
precession (concerned with the tropical/sidereal zodiac question),
accuracy and exactitude are relevant.

Neptune on the other hand is associated with diffusion, fuzziness,
nebulousness, ambiguity and 'chaos'.

So this transit could be seen as an opportunity to re-evaluate the way
you conceptualise structure. The Neptune transit implies a time when
notions of rigidity will be rendered more diffuse and as a consequence
more complex. Semi-permeable or malleable membranes as opposed to
brick walls, for example, or complex dynamic systems theory as opposed
to mechanistic causation.

The opposition from transit Saturn indicates you will probably not be
allowed to wallow in apathetic confusion in this respect. While there
may be a transient sense of 'loss of direction', the selection
pressure to give form (Saturn) to a new vision will be quite strong.
The opposition aspect itself implies that this process will be
catalysed or influenced by external sources, whether they be books you
read, critical authorities, or various possible manifestations of 'the

The general context most likely to be highlighted is what you consider
to be your career, your goals and ambitions, or the areas where you
are trying to develop your own authority. It's an important time in
that respect.

More abstractly, this is a time for reflecting on the complementary
relationships between clarity/ambiguity, order/chaos,
materiality/immateriality, realisation/idealisation, or in astrology,

You'll probably be able to identify which parts of your life these
themes may refer to, but there could be clues in your horoscope, in
particular the house positions and other planets connected by aspect
to Saturn.

I hope this helps.

All the best,




End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 12, Issue 6


[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issues][Further Discussions on CURA forum !?]

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2007 their respective authors.