Exegesis Volume 2 Issue #23
Exegesis Digest Wed, 07 May 1997
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 21:58:12 -0600
From: Dr. Gonzalo Pena Tamez
Subject: The Axiom of Beginnings
>As I've said, I find new material each time I stick my nose in the >book, but one theme has struck me from the start, and is still, to >my mind, the centerpiece to the work. Briefly, Cornelius suggests >that Ptolemy's "theory of seeds and beginnings" is the assumption >that we all accept uncritically, yet it repeatedly leads us to the >most blunders and mistakes in all of astrology.
Ptolemy did not invent the "theory of seeds and beginnings", he only compiled a tradition that is as old as astrology. The chaldeans and babylonians were casting horoscopes for the birth of special children thousands of years before Ptolomy (second century). Further, I don't think it is a theory, I have always call it Axiom #2 of Astrology, or the Axiom of Beginnings, and it is the most solid undeniable fact of the astrological correspondence between what happens in the world and the state of heavens. To even consider tossing out this "theory", is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. And let me add that it is not something we accept uncritically: it is something that we check everyday as we practice serious astrology. I have never read a chart that I have not previously rectified, and when you rectify a chart, working with the stainless steel 2-tips protractor to detect canonic relations between the positions of the transiting planets on important dates of the client's life and the natal chart, you learn to respect the undeniable fact that there is always a particular INSTANT OF INCEPTION when the state of firmament freezes, as it were, to become the radical or root chart with respect to which you are going to measure everything from then on. Besides, I don't think that the Axiom of Beginnings lead to blunders nor mistakes at all, nor has ever had. The Axiom of Beginnings is that, an axiom, which is defined as a truth that needs not be demonstrated. I would first doubt the existence of the ground I am standing on than the Axiom of Beginnings. Every day when I rectify a chart for a client I check out the validity of this axiom. The House Cusps at the moment of birth are punctual and absolutely real, you can check their positions with the stainless steel protractor's tips as you analyze the links between the planets at birth and the transits on key biographical dates of the client They function as origens and points of symmetry in reference to the things pertaining the House they are cusps of, allowing you to confirm the rulerships and obtain equations that directly point to the actual instant when that person was born. I do this every day and have been doing it for 25 years and I just cannot understand how you can respect the opinion of this Cornelius, who obviously just doesn't know what he is talking about.
>In short, since we believe >that charts are only valid for the beginning of a thing (person, >nation, concept, etc.) we need to build tottering rationalizations >to support this concept. For example, the common defense of the >twins problem is to suddenly use a degree of precision we'd never >use otherwise to find the difference that makes a difference. I'm >sure we can find other examples. On the other hand, we have plenty >of evidence of astrology that works without needing the "theory of >seeds and beginnings": horary, solar charts, "divine" charts, and >"wrong" charts that work. And I image there are plenty of other >examples.
As I rectify Ascendants every day, with mathematical techniques of my own devise, I have come upon cases where more than one Ascendant seems to respond to transits and progressions. When that is the case, I apply a quantitative procedure to measure their respective radicality, meaning their actual validity to stand as Ascendants. That's often the case in births where there were 2 conceptions but only one implantation, or else one of the embryos disimplanted, while the other one remained viable. This causes that the person that was going to be born as a twin but actually wasn't, was meant to be born with another Ascendant, but the lose of the twin embryo modified the timings and another Ascendant was the result. The meant-to-be Ascendant retains some sensitivity. This can also be the case with births by caesarean section, as well as other circumstances.
Countries, like corporations and other entities, often have more than one radix that seems to work fine. But they are all true beginnings of sorts, so far from challenging the Axiom of Beginnings, they endorse its ubiquitous validity. For the case of Mexico, my own country, for example, you can use the Independence chart and it works fine: just 2 weeks ago the Popocatepetl volcanoe turned active on the very same day I had predicted it in the local papers using precisely the Independence chart. However, you can also use the Constitution chart or the Revolution chart, and other key charts: yes, they all work fine, but if they do it is precisely because they are all charts of important commencements. Interestingly, all of the mexican charts share certain positions even though they span several centuries: all of them have some planet at 8 degrees of Scorpio for example: Mercury of Independence becomes Venus of the Constitution which in turns becomes Mars of the Revolution, all at 8 Scorpio. This clearly shows how and why they can be used as radix charts. A chart of an important moment in ones's life may work as radix, but that is so only because it shares multiple positions with the real natal chart. Sometimes the real natal chart, say of a country, is not known, but you can infer some of its positions by knowing the charts of subsequent important historical events affecting that country. If something important happens to that country, you can be sure that its true Inception chart, even if unknown, is vibrant with multiple activations from transits and progressions partiling orbs at the moment of the new key development. If the new development is really important, many of these transit activations of the unknown radix are bound to be conjunctions, because that is the strongest aspect, so that explains why that chart of the new development can work, to a certain extent, as if it were the radix: future transits activating it wil, per force, be activating the true radix as well.
About the degre of precision needed for accounting for differences in twins charts, I'll say first that it only goes to show how punctual the instant of birth, or inception, actually is. The Earth rotates one degree every four minutes on the average, that means that all you need is a difference of a couple of minutes to have a different star rising. There are many arcs of heavens were if you move one degree you pass from conjuncting one star to conjuncting another entirely different star. If you use dodekatemorions, then one minute difference already means a great difference in the state of heavens, as all speeds ge multiplied by a factor of 12. Even so, my own research with twins indicates that one of them always has his/her draconic chart zeroed in the North Node of the Moon, while the other has it zeroed in the South Node of the Moon, and that allows you to account for the differences even, if you don't rectify the charts to the precise instant.
You say there is plenty of evidence of astrology that works without needing the "theory of seeds and beginnings", but I just don't believe there is any evidence of that at all...you cite for example "Horary astrology" but here you have the commencement as equal with the chart of the question, cast for the moment the astrologer understands the question, because that is when the question is delivered. The chart of the question is like a beginning, a real commencement, and thus is doesn't challenge either the Axiom of Beginnings. The chart of the Beginning of the Query, as it is also called, clearly aludes to the fact that you are casting a chart for a beginning, and there you are going to look for your answers. So it is utterly false to state that Horary is an example of astrology working without "the theory of seeds and beginnings", because it is actually quite the contrary !. Then you cite Solar Charts, which as everybody knows are very imprecise and thus are only used WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUE MOMENT OF BIRTH. Nobody in his sane judgment would use a solar chart if a true moment of birth chart were extant. Solar charts do not allow precision simply because their significators are not hierarchically the main significators, and their system of rulerships is always subordinated to the true rulerships determined forever (not 'till death, mind you, but until the next birth, when there is a new beginning) in the very instant of birth. I couldn't give a client exact scenarios of his life and experience for precisely timed dateds of his future if I had only a solar chart. That's why I never use solar charts at all: rather, right from the first session, I orient all my efforts into finding the true instant of birth. Without the true instant of birth, there is nothing you can do at all, astrologically speaking, except babble some generalities. Divine charts are not good for any serious predictive work either, and are used only by oracular astrologers that could just as well use anything because they rely on neptunian paranormal habilities that have nothing to do with rational scientific astrology. As far as "wrong charts" that work, well, let me tell you that if once a wrong chart "worked" then either it was a real fluke or else we just have different standards of what it means for a chart "to work".....that is pure nonsense as far as I am concerned. There are many astrologers who give vague stereotyped fuzzy readings, and they could tell you some oracular phrases of ambiguous interpretation based on a "wrong chart" and maybe the client seems the statements fitting to his situation. But that's is not true astrology at all. Every now and then I have clients whose charts don't seem to work and rectification does not appear possible for the date given....The last time this occurred was with a young girl taking my astrology classes who had come for a reading too. I started the reading with rectification of her Ascendant and after 10 hours of steady application, I decided that her chart wasn't radical for any instant on her official date of birth. I concluded that after seeing that no moment of birth on that date would account for the known facts of her life: her number of siblings, her health record, her important biographical dates, etc. So I told her I was sorry but I couldn't deliver a reading because her date of birth seemed wrong. A couple of days later I received a phone call from her father, a famous TV comediant, and he told me that he was concerned about what I had told her daughter about her date of birth not working. I said I was sorry but the rectification of her Ascendant hadn't been possible and I had to conclude she wasn't born on that date at all. Her father right away added that indeed her daughter was adoptive, and that, to be true, they didn't know her date of birth, but his concern stemmed from the fact that she had never been told about her being adopted. The man asked me to keep the secret and not reveal to his daughter that her birth certificate was false and they didn't know when exactly she had been born. The father also asked me to investigate her true birth date and time, which I did.
>Proposition: Since PTSB (Ptolemy's Theory of Seeds and Beginnings) >does not apply to every instance of chart-making, and since PTSB >otherwise does not gain astrology ANY advantage whatsoever, we >should toss PTSB out of any theory of astrology. > > >How does that strike people? > >--fran
That proposition is cheer nonsense and it amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathtub water. Fortunately it will never happens because we know better than that.
Dr. Gonzalo Pena Tamez
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996 -1997 their respective authors.
[Exegesis Top] [Table of Contents] [Prior Issue] [Next Issue]