You may read archived posts from this topic by following this link to the old forum site. The most recent messages in this topic are included below for your convenience.

Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Sun Jul 23 0:06:19 EDT 2000
Subject: 66/68
Message:
I was thinking of just the Uranus-Pluto conjunction. When I discovered that, the 1968 Democratic convention hadn't happened yet, and magazines were speculating on what kinf of fuss was going to happen since it was being held when 7 planets were lined up in Virgo (including Uranus and Pluto). We found out.

Eric

Posted by: Chris Loyd '82
Date posted: Sun Jul 23 11:57:32 EDT 2000
Subject: The 2000 Conventions
Message:
What is expected for the parties' conventions this year, Eric? Also, what was going on, astrologically, during the "Battle of Seattle"? What's the expectations of the Olympics? I mean, is there a risk of terrorism (in that it is expected rather than "everything is at risk for terrorism").

Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Mon Jul 24 14:36:59 EDT 2000
Subject: conventions
Message:
We are in the middle of what I supposed would be a "progressive period" of increased activism and reforms, because of Uranus and Neptune in Aquarius. Saturn's square to Uranus since last summer is also an indicator. During the Battle in Seattle, we had some very good indicators; Mars was lined up with Neptune and Jupiter squaring them. These 3 planets together have indicated such things as the mass risings in France in 1968, 1792 and also 1936 if I remember correctly. Mars-Neptune oppositions figure often in mass risings, such as the Tienanmen square rising in 1989, the May 1968 French rising, the Cambodia invasion protests of May 1970, and the revolutionary events in South Korea in 1987. So when the outer planets indicate a progressive period, Mars-Neptune oppositions, or similar clusters of planets like happened during the battle in Seattle, could indicate a time when it manifests in the form of mass events.

The Republican Convention happens July 31 I believe, and Mars will oppose Neptune August 7th. It will be within orb (close) during the convention, therefore. Mass movements will be strong and they could be disruptive. Is the Dem convention August 23? Mars will then be opposing Uranus. Not as significant, but still indicating some disruption could occur then too.

I don't see indications of major violence or terrorism at the Olympics, which start July 31 I believe. A Mars-Neptune opposition doesn't indicate that, unless Saturn is involved.
Eric Meece

Posted by: Susan '58 (formerly sbrom)
Date posted: Thu Jul 27 22:41:57 EDT 2000
Subject: "Several"
Message:
Hea Teresa--do you think "Several" might be Bill or Neil? If you read "Several"'s last post, the writing style sounds suspiciously like Bill. Maybe they just don't want to admit they read the *ahem* astrology thread??

What do you think?

Posted by: Lis Libengood
Date posted: Sat Jul 29 14:30:04 EDT 2000
Subject: Purpose
Message:
The reason I posted my birthdate is because some of you were speculating about me and my sign. I just wanted you to have the facts.

As for your speculation about Bill or Neil lurking, I can assure you that neither of them would find it necessary to hide behind an anonymous handle, so your mystery poster is someone else.

Posted by: Susan
Date posted: Fri Sep 1 20:53:58 EDT 2000
Subject: Astrology and physics
Message:
Following is a presentation given by my cousin, Will Keepin, for the publication Astrologica. It makes an interesting case for the scientific validity of astrology. Though I don't think Will has read S&H, many of his ideas seem to fit right in with generational theroy, in particular his comments about the outer 3 planets being "higher octaves" of the inner planets, which affect individuals rather than entire generations.

Introduction by Rob Hand Our first speaker this morning is Will Keepin, whom I personally had the pleasure of talking with back at Astrolabe a couple of years ago, for what was it? A day, or day-and-a half? Something like that. It was one of the most impressive conversations I've ever had with anybody. Basically what we have here is a convert. Will is a Ph.D. in physics and has made a number of important contributions to the study of modern physics. He is, in other words, not a Ph.D. in physics, who, having not quite made it in physics, decided to go into metaphysics. He is a Ph.D. in physics, who having made it in physics, decided it was necessary to go into metaphysics and is now involved in relationships between environmental concerns and spirituality. This is not exactly something they teach in graduate school physics departments these days, although modern - day physics is getting sufficiently weird so that it kind of points in this direction. And Will is one of the first of a number of people who have crossed the line and joined us weird people at the periphery of modern civilization. So now I'll turn it over to Will.
William Keepin Well thank you Rob, for that glowing introduction. It's wonderful to be introduced as a convert. Actually, up until about six years ago, the last thing I ever would have thought I would find myself doing would be speaking either about astrology or at an astrological conference. I was trained as a scientist in mathematical physics. And while I was open to certain things such as consciousness expansion and Buddhist concepts of nirvana and shunyata, the absolute last straw for a rigorous scientist is astrology. And it's very interesting thing, because I now feel that it is precisely in the area of astrology where science may have one of its greatest openings in the next few decades to centuries, depending on how much resistance there is.
What I want to do today is outline an intimation of that possibility. Let me say a little about my background in astrology, which is fairly limited. I had the great fortune of studying with Stan Grof for about three years, and during the course of that time, Rick Tarnas came for a week and made a series of presentations on astrology. After that, I began to study my own chart, looking particularly at aspects and transits, and also charts of family members. To make a long story short, I was guided with great thoughtfulness and care by Rick. And I'm very grateful to him for that, because my opening into astrology really came through Rick Tarnas.
The key "moment," my initial moment of transformation, came when I was looking at the chart of a family member who is very close to me. Several years earlier she had had a psychotic break in which she was diagnosed schizophrenic, and there was a whole period of her being in and out of the mental hospital. She eventually came through it. She had in her natal chart a Mars-Uranus conjunction square to Neptune, and the Neptune was also trine to a Mercury-Venus conjunction. At the time of her difficulty, she had transiting Pluto conjoining her Neptune, so it was basically lighting up that challenging aspect of the Mars-Uranus square to Neptune. Then in November of 1982, precisely in the month that she had the break and went into the hospital, Saturn came and conjoined Pluto. So she had transiting Saturn and transiting Pluto conjunct her Neptune, which is clearly a once-in-a-lifetime transit, and she certainly had a once-in-a-lifetime kind of experience. That was a very profound opening for me, and it led me to really being an inquiry into astrology, which continues to this day.
So I want to say that it's a great honor and privilege to be here. I have to tell one more little story though, which is that when I went to meet Rob Hand, Rick and I went together. And as Rob said, it was one of the most fascinating discussions I've ever had, also. We covered a wide range of topics, and afterward Rick and I went to a conference. I don't think I've ever told Rick this, but flying home on the airplane back to San Francisco, as Rick and I were talking, I suddenly got the profundity, at least at some level, of what this was all about. I had this very distinct feeling that the back half of my head had been opened up and removed. And, I had the sense of feeling the cosmos back behind my head in very direct communication, or communion - it was quite a palpable physical sensation. At the time, I just thought, "Well, that's interesting," but in retrospect, I realize it was a very important moment.

What I'm going to offer today, rather than a presentation, is more of a meditation. I want to give you some of the ideas and inquiries and contemplations I have had in the last six years as I have grappled with this question of "How could astrology possibly be valid?" It seems to contradictory to what orthodox science tells us. I'd like to begin by making the point that mainstream science has no credible case against astrology. The two usual arguments given in science are that there is no evidence for astrology, and there is no mechanism that could possibly explain it.

The "no evidence" is simply false, primarily because of the work of Michel Gauquelin. I'm sure you're all familiar with the statistical work that Gauquelin did. I'm not going into that today, because I really want to go into the deeper theoretical understandings. As valid and important as that work is, it is based on statistics. And I think some of what we're going to be seeing in the next decade or so is that statistics itself will be coming into serious questions as a valid scientific epistemology. In any case, there is scientific evidence for astrology.
The second point, on the business of "no mechanism," relies on offhand order-of-magnitude arguments, such as: The gravitational effect of the doctor on the baby was greater than the gravitational effect of Pluto at the time of birth. Therefore, if the doctor had nothing to do with the baby's psyche, how could Pluto have anything to do with it? (1) The argument is, in a narrow sense, valid; but all it shows is that astrology does not work by gravity. One can make similar arguments about electromagnetic interactions and even nuclear interactions. One comes up with the same conclusion. It's valid as far as it goes, but it doesn't begin to touch upon the true nature of the phenomena. And it doesn't preclude alternative explanations.

Astrology, in no way, contradicts any of the facts of science as we understand them. It is at variance with unjustified extrapolation from those facts, with a world view that is assumed to be proven by mainstream orthodox scientists, buy which, in fact, is a set of assumptions, but not with any of the established facts.
In 1975 there was a famous astronomical declaration against astrology signed by 186 scientists. Those who signed on, generally, actually knew either nothing or very little about astrology. But it was interesting to hear some of the tales about those who did not sign, such as Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. He refused to sign because he simply didn't know. And Carl Sagan, who you all know as a man with great insight into the billions of stars in the cosmos. I believe he also refused to sign. I'm not totally sure about that, but he did give the following statement about astrology. It's a nice dismissal of this whole business of astrology not being valid because we don't understand how it could possibly work. Sagan says, "That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant, but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong." Basically, Sagan should be credited with acknowledging this fact that astrology cannot be dismissed simply because it's not understood how it might work.
You may be familiar with some of the work of Percy Seymour, who's written a couple of books on science and astrology, such as The Scientific Basis of Astrology. (2) I'm not intimately familiar with his work, but I have read a good bit of it. The essence of what he's proposing is that astrology works by some kind of magnetic field interaction.
What I'm offering here is a very different understanding. In my view, astrology is actually much more profound than any process that takes place in the physical realm. It involves something that is beyond the physical realm, for which we are now gaining increasing evidence in some of the new developments in modern science. And that is what I really want to speak about today. Those developments that I'm referring to are the theoretical work of David Bohm and the emerging fields of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory, and in particular, fractal geometry. I'll be giving an example in a moment.
I'd like to begin with David Bohm's work in theoretical physics. David Bohm was born in 1917. He was a young brilliant physicist who studied at Berkeley under Oppenheimer. He then went to Princeton and became a colleague of Albert Einstein. And in fact, he and Einstein had very intensive discussions about the meaning of quantum theory. David Bohm wrote a book on quantum theory that was published in 1951, which Einstein said was the clearest exposition of quantum theory be had ever seen. The two became very close, and then there was a very curious development. Bohm was called to testify against Robert Oppenheimer in the McCarthy era, and he refused. Although Oppenheimer was acquitted, Bohm lost his job at Princeton and had to leave the country. Thus his association with Einstein was effectively terminated. So, Bohm went to Brazil, then Israel, then ended up at the University of London, where he did most of his work.
His basic contribution to physics, and to science generally, is still greatly under-recognized, and I submit that it's nothing less than a completely new understanding of what science means and what science is. I want to briefly summarize his contributions.
First, a comment on the way that Bohm worked. He had these burning passionate quests for deep understanding of the nature of reality and existence, and this carried him quite beyond the bound of physics. As many of you may know, he carried on a 20-year dialogue with the Indian mystic and sage, Krishnamurti. He also had extensive dialogues with other spiritual masters, including the Dalai Lama. And he ended up developing a theoretical understanding of modern physics that is actually consistent with spiritual teachings down through the ages. And it's quite rich and complex. What I'm going to do today is merely outline some of the fundamentals of his understanding.
The basic nature of reality, according to David Bohm, was what he called a holomovement - holo, meaning holographic-like, and movement suggesting dynamism and process. To use his words, the nature of reality is "a singly unbroken wholeness in flowing movements." So, everything is connected and everything is in dynamic flux. Now in this term holomovement, holo refers to holographic structure, meaning that each part of the flow, in some way, contains the entire flow. We'll be looking at some examples of what that might mean. And the movement part of the holomovement is that the whole flow is in a continual process of change. Bohm developed this out of his reinterpretation of quantum physics. Many of you may have read some of the famous works by Firtjof Capra and Gary Zukov, and that whole beautiful opening, which happened in the late 1970's and early 1980's into essentially the mystical implications of modern physics.
What Bohm did was something I think is at least as important, but has not been recognized as such. He began with the Schrodinger equation, which is the central equation of quantum theory, and partitioned it mathematically into two parts. The first part was essentially a recapitulation of classical Newtonian physics, and the second part was a wave-like information field. The Schrodinger equation is an equation for the movement of the electron and offers insight into questions such as, "How does the electron behave?" and, "What is the nature of the electron?" Bohm postulated that the electron behaves just like an ordinary classical particle, but with access to information about the rest of the universe.
This is the part that physicists have a hard time accepting, as you might imagine, because the electron is essentially acting with a kind of awareness about the rest of the universe. That awareness comes in this second term, which Bohm called the quantum potential, which is a wave-like information field that gives the electron access to information about the rest of the physical universe. Bohm was able to show that the influence of his quantum potential depended only on the form and not on the magnitude of this wave-form. And because it didn't depend on the magnitude, it was therefore independent of separation in space. Therefore, every point in space had a contribution to make to the electron's awareness.
If that makes any sense, the essence is that the electron is a kind of guided particle. In fact, Bohm uses the analogy of a 747 plane flying over an ocean. It's guided by radio waves. The radio waves themselves do not have the energy to actually cause the airplane to turn and make a change in course, but the provide information that the airliner then responds to and adjusts its course according to the information supplied in these radio waves. So, the radio waves themselves contain much less energy than the airliner to guide and direct its own energy. Essentially it's the same kind of understanding that Bohm had about the electron.
Bohm further proposed that the holomovement I mentioned consists of two parts - an explicate order and an implicate order. I will clarify this difference with an example that Bohm himself developed.
Imagine a jar filled with thick, transparent fluid-like glycerin, a highly viscous fluid. In the center of the jar is a cylinder rod with a handle so you can turn the rod. You add a drop of ink into the glycerin, and the ink just sits there. But when you turn the inner cylinder around, it pulls this drop of ink and stretches it out. If you continue turning, the ink is drawn out into longer, ever finer and fainter lines. Eventually, if you keep doing this, the ink actually disappears completely. You can no longer see it.
Now at this point, it's very tempting to conclude that the order that was originally present in the drop has now been rendered completely random and chaotic by thorough mixing of the ink into the glycerin. So much so that you can no longer even see the ink. However, if you now reverse the direction of the rotation, what you find is that this thin long line of ink will begin to reappear. And as you continue the reverse rotation, it will continue to get thicker and more clearly defined, and eventually, it will completely reconstruct itself.
Now this is a mechanical metaphor for what Bohm talks about. What it tells us is that a hidden order may be present in what appears to be random. That's a very important insight that Bohm had, so I'd like to repeat it. With reference to this example and with references to reality in general, what appears to be random may, in fact, contain a hidden order. And unless your epistemological net is sufficiently fine, or sufficiently broad, you may miss that hidden order.
Bohm call this order the implicate order, because although the ink is dispersed to the point of not being visible, its order has, in some way, been preserved. Or, I should rather say it's been transformed into a different form, but it has not been destroyed. And it can then move from being implicate into what Bohm would call the explicate order, where the order has been made visible and made manifest. So we than have this ink dot reappearing.
When the ink drop disappears, Bohm would say that its order is enfolded in the glycerin. When the ink drop reappears, its order is unfolded back into the explicate order. I am going to be using these terms, so I want you to be come familiar with them.
The whole relationship between the explicate and implicate order is quite a complex one, and I'll just say a few things about it. If you're struggling for a way to get your mind around it, a very simple way of understanding it is that the explicate order is the manifest realm; it is the physical space-time universe in which we live. Then, the implicate order is the unseen, or the unmanifest realm.
It's tempting, perhaps, perhaps to think of the explicate order as the primary reality, and the implicate order as the subtle secondary reality. For Bohm, precisely the opposite is the case. The fundamental primary reality is the implicate order, and the explicate order is but a set of ripples on the surface of the implicate order. So, that which we can see and feel and touch is merely the waves on the surface of reality, which is a vast ocean of implicate order.
Another way of possibly thinking about this is in terms of the good old television set. The implicate order is essentially all the programming being broadcast at any given time, and the explicate order is what's on the screen at a particular time. So, the explicate order is but a narrow window on what's actually there - a tiny little part that's manifest on a sea of possibility - and the full reality exists in the implicate order.
Another point that Bohm emphasized was that empty space is part of the wholeness - this unbroken flowing movement. Empty space is not just some giant vacuum through which matter moves, but rather, space and matter are intimately interconnected. This is a very important way of reconsidering the ontology of so-called empty space. Bohm actually did some calculations showing that each cubic centimeter of so-call empty space contains more potential energy than all the manifest energy in he universe. As he put it, space is full, rather than empty.
This gives you some sense of the thinking of David Bohm. What I want to do now is to go into a more concrete example of the holographic structure. To do this, I'll use an example from chaos theory and fractal geometry.
This example is known as the Mandelbrot set. Much of what I'm saying, in a sense, is not really going to be new to most of you. As astrologers, you know this, intuitively. The main point of my presentation today is to show you how certain directions in science are emerging toward a parallel understanding.
This is call the Mandelbrot set, after the French mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot. (Please refer to diagrams at left.) It is generated by a nonlinear iterated process. The process itself is incredibly simple. Basically, you begin with a number, and you square that number, then you add a constant to it. That will give you a new number. You then take that new number, square it, and add a constant, which gives you a third number; and you continue repeating this process. If that sequence stays bounded, i.e., if it doesn't blow up to infinity, then the point that you began with is in the Mandelbrot set, in the white area. If you don't understand the mathematics, don't worry. It's not important for the essence of what I want to show you.

Now let us zoom in on this Mandelbrot set into the order of about a billion times, and you can really see the structure of this set. As we "dive" into it, you can begin to see some quite beautiful scales. You'll notice that these little patterns begin to look like parts of the original structure.
(TMA Editor's note: Space does not permit the use of the visuals that Dr. Keepin used in this part of the speech, but we refer the reader here to color plates in the widely-available book Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick (Penguin Books, NY)
To continue our zooming process, I'd like to go deep down into one of these little white glowing spots, and as you can see, there is quite some intricacy and delicacy and grace and elegance to this structure. Continuing further, if you'll notice in the middle of this, there is another little white spot, so we're now going to zoom right into that, and now you'll begin to see something emerging. If you look closely into the center of that white spot, you'll see the original figure reappearing. So here we have essentially the same structure replicated on a scale one-billion times smaller. In mathematics, this is called self-similar structures or nested sets of self-similar structures. In alchemy and astrology, it is call "As above, so below."
In a sense, science is now beginning to discover, through certain recent developments, some of the ancient wisdom and teachings. I want to say a little bit more about the nature of this. In the Mandelbrot example, recall that we zoomed in about a billion times and found a structure that virtually resembles the whole. However, on very close inspection, it's not identical. It's slightly different, and not only that, if you blow up any one of there other parts of this same structure, you will again find these little Mandelbrot sets embedded within it. There are literally billions of them. In fact, there is an infinity of them, because each of them contains billions within it, and the process of worlds within worlds keeps going. What we have here is a very profound set of nested self-similar structures. That's how the scientists would put it.
We have here a kind of evidence for the alchemical notion of "As above, so below." Moreover, this reveals the ontological bankruptcy of reductionism. The basic philosophy of reductionism, which prevailed in orthodox science, holds that if we want to understand a complex system, we must break it apart into pieces to render it much more simple. What we're finding here is that when we break the whole apart into these pieces, each piece is as complex as the original whole. This is a very different understanding. You can now begin to see what is meant by this idea that each part contains the whole. Because when we zoom in on one of there tiny little Mandelbrot sets, which is one-billionth of the size of the whole, it has the identical structure. The microcosm has all elements, essentially, of the macrocosm. However, I want to emphasize that each part does contain the whole, not at the manifest level, but rather, at the process level. The little tiny Mandelbrot bug does not contain the great big one in a physical sense. It's much too small to contain it. But at the level of the process, the two are virtually identical.
Now, what does all this mean, and what does it mean for astrology? This is where I want to invite a kind of metaphorical flight of fancy. This is what I meant when I said this was a meditation, because it requires imaginative metaphorical thinking. I'd like to invite you to consider this Mandelbrot set as a kind of model of the cosmos. Let us think of each one of these little Mandelbrot sets as, for example, a human being. Then if one were to go inward and contemplate the nature of one's existence deeply, one would essentially come into awareness of the process that gave rise to one's existence. In coming into that awareness, one would then apprehend the process of the entire cosmos, because they are one and the same process.
It's like what the Tantric Buddhists say, which is, "If you come to know the human body deeply enough, you come to know the entire Cosmo." And they're not talking about a physical knowing. They are talking about a knowing at an energetic level, at the level of process. In this case, it's represented by Mandelbrot's simple equation, which is the implicate order.
Thus far, these Mandelbrot sets we've been looking at are static structures. They are fixed, unchanging mathematical structures. Now let us imagine instead that the structures and underlying process are both evolving in time. Imagine that this process -the implicate order- is changing over time and that, therefore, this Mandelbrot structure - the explicate order - is itself changing over time. I actually looked for some videos of this and wasn't able to find any. I don't even know if this has been done mathematically. But basically the idea would be that as the process underlying this manifestation unfolds and changes, then this whole structure would also change and evolve as a kind of dynamic fractal. You can then imagine that each one of these little tiny embedded Mandelbrots changes and evolves in a way that is directly correlated with the evolution of the entire macrocosm. In this way, we begin to understand how there could be correlations between the evolution of the macrocosm, i.e., the motion of the planets, for example, and the evolution of one individual part of that macrocosm, i.e., one human being.
This leads to a kind of metaphorical understanding for how astrology might work, and it works in a way that is not mechanistic. This is very important to understand. It's not that Pluto sends rays down to your brain, which acts as a radio receiver, picks them up, and goes and does Plutonic things. And it's not the Pluto is in you, in the sense that the physical Pluto is much too big to be contained in your physical body. It's that the process that's going on in Pluto is also going on in you. Literally. So, Pluto is literally contained in you, and in me, but at the process level, not at the manifest level.
In response to an inaudible audience question, Dr. Keeping replies: The Mandelbrot set is actually a two-dimensional object, which exists in the mathematical object, which exists in the mathematical complex plane. And there's another limitation of this whole metaphor that I want to mention. Basically, what I'm trying to suggest here is that, very loosely, this gives us a model for understanding something about the nature of how astrology works. Which is that we have a generative process, or implicate order, and then we have a manifest realm. And as this process changes over time, it results in an unfolding cosmos that has temporal correlations between the microcosmic and the macrocosmic manifestations. But as you know, a given astrological archetypal configuration can result in a variety of different manifestations, depending on the intentions, the being, and the integrity of the person involved. So it's really much more complex than this. This is really intended only

Posted by: Susan
Date posted: Fri Sep 1 21:02:16 EDT 2000
Subject: oops
Message:
I'm not very good at cut & paste yet. If anyone is interesed in seeing the rest of the article, the URL is:

http://www.astrologica.com/currents/keepin2.htm

Posted by: Vince Lamb '59
Date posted: Thu May 31 22:43:10 2001
Subject: Returning Astrology to this thread from the Environmental thread
Message:
Eric, Jim, and Brian were going at it there about the correlation of astrological cycles with the saeculum. It was interesting, but didn't belong there.

Anyway, it seems that a growing minority of us are beginning to take seriously the "material cause" idea that the saeculum has shortened during the past two cycles to ~72 years. This causes problems for Eric's correlation of the saeculum to Uranus, but it doesn't kill the connection to astrology completely. There are other astronomical bodies in the Solar System than planets. What about periodic comets, especially Halley's Comet? It has an orbital period of about 72 years.

Posted by: Kay (Kay )

Date posted: Sun Jul 1 5:17:23 2001
Subject: astrology
Message:
I find the idea of applying astrology here fascinating. Although I have a few issues with the the 1961-1981 time frame given as a generation. Because astrologicall the positions of the planets would have indicated to me that there were most likely 2 generations included here.

The first one starting around 1956 with Pluto in Virgo and Neptune Scorpio would have very little in common with those born after 1971 or 1972 with Pluto in Libra and Neptune in Sagittarius. Wouldn't these differences be even more extreme as both groups have a somewhat rare Uranus/Pluto conjunction. The first in Virgo and the second in Libra. If they are truly one generation, isn't possible that they may actually break apart?
I admit that I'm mostly a novice, but I had been taught that generations are signaled by Neptune and Pluto. Neptune on the positive side is the idealism or dreams of a generation while on the negative side it can be delusion or victimization. Pluto shows where there are extremes, rebirth, and transformation. The generation where Pluto is located will fulfill or deal with the the issues of the generation that had Neptune pass through that sign before them. The Pluto/Uranus in Virgo generation are here to confront and transform the idealism and dreams of those that had been born with Neptune in Virgo. While Pluto/Uranus in Libra are here to do the same with the Neptune in Libra generation.

Thanks for your comment Kay. Good question.

I think we also have to include Uranus as a significator of generations, especially since Uranus appears to correlate with the saeculum (as long as it stays about 84 years, which contrary to some here I think it will). Also, the S&H generations cycle is specifically anglo-american and other countries might not be on the same cycle, whereas planetary signs themselves apply universally. So, the planets may indicate some generational trends quite separate and apart from those indicated by the cycles of upbringing and social moods shown by S&H.

In my earlier posts I showed however that there are some striking connections. Neptune's entry into a cardinal sign (Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn) correlated within a year or two to the start of prophet and civic-hero generations, and with the hero-like Gilded generation, through the 19th and 20th centuries, and its entry into Scorpio in 1792 corresponded to the start of the Transcendental generation. Aries represented well the "Missionary" generation that started with Neptune's entry into Aries in 1861, while Libra symbolized the "flower-power" generation that began with its entry into that sign in 1943. Neptune in Capricorn set the tone for the utilitarian Gilded in 1821, while Cancer did the same for the home and family-oriented GIs in 1901. Scorpio was an apt symbol for the intense and passionate Transcendentals.

Also, a key indicator seems to be possible to some extent, looking at Uranus' position relative to its place at the crisis climax, which always happens when Uranus is at about 9 degrees Gemini. The correlation of Uranus' position to its place in the American horoscope in 1776, and its position in 1607 (first colony), seems to be the most powerful correlation between planets and the saeculum cycle in America. Astrologers also note that Uranus is the planet intended to represent the length of a human life, and the horizon of experience that it represents, which is also the basis for S&H's saeculum. It is also the planet directly linked to the birth of America, since it was discovered in 1781, the year America won independence (America meaning the United States). Discovery of a planet indicates its full entrance into society and consciousness, and Uranus stands for individualism and liberty, the key American values.

Therefore, dividing the zodiac into 4 phases for the 4 generational archetypes, Uranus' position from 9 Gemini to 9 Virgo, roughly, indicates the generation born after the crisis climax, prophets; and so on around the wheel. Significantly, Gemini, Cancer and Leo are close to the summer solstice, which represents emphasis on the individual's experience, whereas the opposite signs, Sagittarius, Capricorn and Aquarius, are the most outer-directed and society-conscious signs. So there is something of a correlation between Uranus in the summer signs and prophets, and Uranus in the winter signs and heroes. Those born with Uranus near the equinox are "equalizing" mediators between the polar opposite prophets and heroes. That correlation didn't hold during the civil war anomaly however, when the transcendentals' births stretched well into what would normally be the nomad phase.

In my book I broke down the correlations into smaller groups corresponding to the signs of the three outer planets and aspects between them. War Babies were those born with the Uranus-Neptune trine, and Pluto in Leo. Boomers were those with the Uranus-Neptune square and Pluto in Leo/Neptune in Libra. Boomers part 2, which we know as Joneser-Boomers, were those with the three planets in the next signs (Leo, Virgo, Scorpio) from where they were during Boomers part 1, many also having the Uranus-Neptune square, but before the Uranus-Pluto conjunction began. The typical early Xers born in the 60s I saw as those with that conjunction in Virgo, and with Neptune in Scorpio, while later 70s Xers had the planets in Sag and Libra after the conjunction ended. And so on.
http://www.california.com/~eameece/book.htm

Eric Meece

Justin
Father Virgo, Mom Scorpio
November 20, 1979 1:47 am EST
help me out here, please!!!!
thanks
Justin

Reposted from Ennegram thread per "cleanup" instructions:

On 2002-03-13 12:35, Eric A Meece wrote:

Stonewall, contact me by email with your birth info, and I'll get you an accurate chart. The clock mentioned here usually won't work. Include time and place of birth. You can't judge astrology by whether you fit your sun sign; there's too much more to it. I can also send you my own summary of the signs if you want. Read these and decide for yourself which ones fit you the best. Only then should you check to see if these signs (or the planets that rule them) are the most prominent in your chart.

Thanks, I appreciate anything you can tell me. I did say I would give this a fair hearing.

BTW the correlation of the seaculum to Uranus should have given you pause; not enough to think astrology is an exact science (which it definitely isn't) but certainly enough to think it might (maybe) have as much validity as a lot of the other "soft" sciences that deal with people.

It did. But it may still be coincidence rather than correlation. I'd see a whole lot more validity here if the Capricorn descriptions actually fit me and they simply do not. But then you said there is more to it. I'll be interested to see if you can find me in there in the whatever composite of factors applies.

On 2002-03-13 12:25, Eric A Meece wrote:

SHERRY: What other test???

This one, from a post from Stonewall: http://www.essortment.com/in/New.Age..General/

I'll post this over in the Astrology thread, too, so as to get back on track here....

And here we are.

That site has a lot of links to choose from. Was there one which had a test that gave you these percentages? Or did you take a quiz for each sign?

On 2002-03-14 13:30, Eric A Meece wrote:
That site has a lot of links to choose from. Was there one which had a test that gave you these percentages? Or did you take a quiz for each sign?

Eric, it is confusing. There are twelve individual sign tests and they are neither consecutively listed nor arranged in chronological order. Matters are complicated by the fact that their are separate sign "love tests" or something down further. So just search or scan for your twelve different sign tests in the upper half of the page.

On 2002-03-14 16:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-03-14 13:30, Eric A Meece wrote:
That site has a lot of links to choose from. Was there one which had a test that gave you these percentages? Or did you take a quiz for each sign?

Eric, it is confusing. There are twelve individual sign tests and they are neither consecutively listed nor arranged in chronological order. Matters are complicated by the fact that their are separate sign "love tests" or something down further. So just search or scan for your twelve different sign tests in the upper half of the page.

That's exactly what I did. Yes, it did take a while...but the results were interesting. It probably wasn't apparent on my first list w/results from both tests, but here are the results from only "The Other Test," ranked highest to lowest:

Cancer 60%
Pisces 50%
Scorpio 45%
Virgo 45%
Libra 30%
Aquarius 30%
Taurus 25%
Capricorn 25%
Gemini 20%
Leo 15%
Sagittarius 10%
Aries 5%

As mentioned before, my sign is Cancer, so it shouldn't be surprising that it came out on top. What is interesting is looking at the signs by element:

Water
Water
Water
Earth
Air
Air
Earth
Earth
Air
Fire
Fire
Fire

And looking back at Jyllian's test, when I group my results by element, I get:

Water 24
Earth 21
Air 20
Fire 7

Compare that to the element list from "The Other Test" & there is an obvious correlation: First all the Water signs, followed by a mixture of Earth & Air signs, ending w/all the Fire signs.

Comments/opinions?

Wow, Sherry, that is pretty amazing.
When I have more time (like over the weekend) I will have to take this test and post my results here.

I am a Cancer/Gemini cusp, with Scorpio rising and Virgo moon, and what is fascinating is on the other test (the 72-queston one) all four of those signs tied for second place, but Pisces came out first. It will ne interesting to find out if I still come out as a Pisces on this test too.

I have always identified the most with the Pisces (INFP) personality type.
But then Pisces and Cancer are both water signs, and are kind of similar in many ways. I lack the Cancerian pragmatism and need to take care of everyone though. Eric has said the Enneagram type that corresponds with Cancer is 2, and I score very low on that. He has correlated Pisces with type 4, which I am, and my 5-wing is very Geminian.

Susan, I'd like to see your results & what you think; I think you've done a lot more w/astrology than my reading Linda Goodman!

I'm at the other end of Cancer, almost into Leo. Someone cast my chart once using a computer program, but the results are packed away & all I can remember is that my Sun, Moon, Rising Sign, & Venus are all in Cancer. The Rising Sign being Cancer puzzled me, as I had thought that DST had to be accounted for, & in converting to Standard Time my time of birth would have moved back to 3:15 am. Perhaps you or Eric or someone could clear that up? I think Donna was also asking about this...

Unfortunately, Sherry, I had my results written down on paper and I cannot find it. (I am not an organized person!) I could try taking the test again, but the results may be slightly different (though probably not off by that much as most of the questions were not too ambiguous to me).

Wow, you have all those major planets in Cancer? I am curious--how much do you fit the sign's description?

Sherry, if you email your birth info (time, date, place) I will clear that up for you.

Remember too Susan, what I said about Neptune being exactly trine your Sun. Most astrologers agree that planets and their aspects are even more important to consider than signs. If you have Scorpio rising, Neptune may also be on or close to your Ascendant.

So far Aquarius is my #1 sign, although I have no planets there. But its ruler Uranus is exactly on my Ascendant and square aspected to both my Moon and Sun.

I'll take those "other test(s)" but it may take some time. I noticed that the results for Sherry were more accurate than with the Jullian (or whatever it is) test. I thought that latter test was pretty mediocre.


_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-15 21:37 ]</font>

Mr. Meece, were you actually born were you claim to have been born? There seems to be some relevance to this notion, of late, with our divine friend, Ms. Cleo.

May the stars be with you, my friend. :smile:

OK let's see how I came out at New Age Central:

Cancer 55% (my rising sign)
Libra 45% (my sun sign)
Scorpio 45% (my Venus sign)
Sagittarius 40% (only Chiron here)
Aries 40% (my Moon sign)
Pisces 35% (nothing here, but Neptune conj. Sun)
Leo 35% (I have Mars and Pluto conj. here)
Aquarius 30% (#1 on the other test. I have nothing here, but have Uranus rising)
Virgo 25% (I have Saturn here)
Capricorn 25% (I have Jupiter here)
Taurus 20% (I have nothing here)
Gemini 5% (I have nothing here)

It was a pretty good test. Some of the statements were pretty extreme and hard to identify with. But there was a pretty good spread of moderate and extreme statements. 20 questions per sign is better than the other test. My scores were pretty close though on many of the signs.

My elements score was water 27, fire 23, air 16 and earth 14. I'd say it's accurate that earth is last place. My chart is pretty balanced there.

I compared the ranks I got on the two tests to make a composite score. (I took the Jyllian test again and got slightly different results this time). So for example Libra ranked 5th on Jyllian and 2nd on New Age Central, so the composite score for my sun sign is 7. Thus, I added the rank of each sign on the New Age Central test:
http://www.essortment.com/in/New.Age..General/
and the Jyllian test:
http://www.angelfire.com/home/jyllia...logy_test.html
for a composite score.

sign Jyllian+New Age=composite score

Libra 5+2=7 (my Sun sign)
Leo 2+6=8 (Mars conj. Pluto there)
Aquarius 1+8=9 (Uranus rising)
Pisces 3+6=9 (Neptune conj. Sun)
Cancer 9+1=10 (rising sign)
Sagittarius 6+4=10 (Chiron)
Scorpio 9+2=11 (Venus sign)
Aries 9+4=13 (Moon sign)
Virgo 6+9=15 (Saturn sign)
Gemini 4+12=16 (nothing there)
Taurus 6+11=17 (nothing there)
Capricorn 12+9=21 (Jupiter sign)

The Jyllian test has one advantage over the other, in that you don?t know which sign is being asked for beforehand. Overall the New Age test looks more accurate so far for me and others.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-15 22:58 ]</font>

Eric, I couldn't get your e-mail to work (kept getting the message that the address was incorrect), so I used the "Private Message" function.

Susan, I do fit the Cancerian personality type pretty well, at least as Linda Goodman describes it (the child's description as well as the woman's). I love history, genealogy, photography, reading; am pretty sentimental; have an acute memory; am moody & sensitive (or over-sensitive). And I love the water (& swimming & canoeing), especially the ocean. It's the one place where I truly feel at peace. (Living near a Great Lake is a pretty good substitute.) The one major exception to the Cancerian description was a distinct lack of interest in having children; I was quite happy to "mother" my friends. Now, though, being a parent, I find myself a lot more interested in & comfortable w/kids. But I'm still "one & done"! :wink:

Although I still have not seen enough evidence to believe that there is anything to this astrology, I thought that I ought to give Eric credit where credit is due. Let me explain:

Eric sent me some descriptions of what each planet is supposed to represent, more detailed than what we have seen thus far. He then asked me to rank the planets in the order in which they apply to me, based upon those descriptions. After careful consideration, I submitted the following list (and added the associated signs after the fact):

Uranus....Aquarius
Pluto.....Scorpio
Mercury...Gemini, Virgo
Mars......Aries, Scorpio
Jupiter...Sagittarius, Pisces
Sun.......Leo
Saturn....Capricorn, Aquarius
Venus.....Taurus, Libra
Neptune...Pisces
Moon......Cancer

Let me explain my ordering process in greater detail so that the logic behind this list is understandable. It is important to bear in mind when assessing the chart's results:

Uranus and Pluto were hands down out in front for me. Uranus supposedly represents knowledge, learning, reason, etc. and Pluto represents radical change and regeneration. If there is anything to this business at all, then my chart should definitely show primary influence from Uranus and Pluto with Uranus probably out ahead of Pluto.

The next obvious ones for me were Mars and Jupiter. I was less certain which one should precede the other but I leaned toward Mars. But it could go either way.

Then Mercury was a funny one. It could go either high or low. On the one hand, it represents, reason and analysis (which apply to me) but, on the other hand, it is detail-oriented, orderly, and neat (which do not apply to me). So I was not sure how to rank this planet. Do I assume that reason and analysis trump details and order and rank it moderately high? Or do I assume that details and order take precedence and rank it moderately low? Even if reason and analysis rules, do Uranus and Jupiter determine mine such that Mercury is irrelevant? Really confusing. I finally opted to rank Mercury moderately high with foreknowledge that it might properly belong at a moderately low position.

It was absolutely clear to me that these five planets should form my upper tier (excepting Mercury which again might belong further down). So I got this for the upper tier:

Uranus
Pluto

?Mercury? (either/or and might belong relatively low)

Mars
Jupiter

The next thing I noted were the planets which should definitely finish in the bottom tier if there is anything to this. I thought that the Moon should definitey finish last. Venus and Neptune should finish directly above it, probably with Venus ahead of Neptune, but it could go either way. So the bottom tier of my list read like this:

Venus
Neptune

Moon

The last two were the Sun and Saturn and it was clear that they should finish on a middle tier. However it was not clear to me which should precede the other. I finally opted to place the Sun ahead of Saturn but, again, it could go either way. So I got this for middle tier:

Sun
Saturn

Putting the list together with the logic behind it, I got:

Uranus
Pluto

?Mercury? (possibly should be moderately low)

Mars
Jupiter

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

Sun
Saturn

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

Venus
Neptune

Moon

==================

I submitted this list and Eric then ran my chart. He addressed specific inter-planetary aspects on my chart and told me their supposed meanings. I looked for further details on these aspects online and saw a great deal of variation. Therefore, I could not attach any real weight to the significance of these aspects since it appeared to me that any aspect could be emphasized at the expense of another on anybody's chart in order to make the overall description fit. (Sorry, Eric.)

However it occurred to me that I could skip the hocus-pocus (as I still see it) surrounding specific aspects and simply assess the weight which each planet carried on my chart. I could rank the planets from most influential to least and then compare the list to my initial prediction described above. And that is what I did.

Eric sent me a list of all the interplanetary aspects which appear on my chart. Actually, he sent a list of stronger aspects and a separate list of weaker aspects. What I did is count up the number of times each planet appears on each list. I got this (again for two lists):

Stronger aspects

Uranus = 6
Pluto = 6
Mars = 5
Jupiter = 3
Saturn = 3
Chiron = 3
Sun = 2
Neptune = 1
Venus = 1
Moon = 0
Mercury = 0


Weaker aspects

Moon = 6
Mercury = 5
Jupiter = 4
Uranus = 3
Saturn = 3
Neptune = 3
Pluto = 2
Sun = 2
Venus = 2
Mars = 0
Chiron = 0

However extra weight obviously had to be added to the stronger aspects. So I multiplied the stronger aspect value of each planet by two and added it to its unaltered weaker aspect value, ranked the planets, and arrived at this result:

Uranus = 15
Pluto = 14
Mars = 10
Jupiter = 10
Saturn = 9
Chiron = 6
Sun = 6
Moon = 6
Mercury = 5
Neptune = 5
Venus = 4

I have to admit that this is a rather stunning match with my original prediction. As you might recall, I was unsure whether to go moderately high or moderately low with Mercury. I "flipped a coin" and went moderately high, and it finished moderately low -- no big deal. Additionally, I was confident that the Moon would probably finish last but it did not. However the Moon did still finish in the bottom tier (it's not like it finished at the top). Saturn beat the Sun but again that could have gone either way. But Saturn and the Sun still finished consecutively in a middle tier as expected. Skip Chiron since I had nothing with which to rank it originally. So apart from finicky and uncertain Mercury, the upper tier finished in place, the lower tier did too, and the middle tier did as well. For clarification, here is the final result observing those tiers:

Uranus
Pluto
Mars
Jupiter

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

Saturn
Sun

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

Moon
Mercury
Neptune
Venus

===================

I have to say that this is truly surprising. Again, I am a Capricorn with Pisces Rising and neither Capricorn nor Pisces fits me in isolation which is a large part of why I have always considered this stuff to be absurd. Saturn supposedly rules Capricorn and, as you can see, I placed it in the middle tier in my list and it indeed finished in the middle tier. The point is that the chart may attach much more emphasis to things apart from your Sun sign and indeed mine did. My chart placed the proper emphasis on non-Capricorn planets while still portraying me as a Capricorn (with Pisces Rising no less).

Of course I have to believe that this is coincidence. Surely not everyone who goes ahead and ranks their planets ahead of time (as I did) gets a chart which backs up their list (as mine did). Why on earth would the alignment of planets at birth have any bearing on who we are? So I can only assume that Eric lucked out with me here.

But to be fair, and to keep an open mind, I would encourage others to get with Eric (if he is willing) and do exactly as I did. Rank your planets ahead of time according to Eric's detailed descriptions. Then let Eric provide separate lists for stronger and weaker aspects from your chart. Rank the planets by number of occurences in each list. Double the value for each planet in the stronger aspect list and add it to the unaltered value from the weaker aspect list. Rank the planets from most influential to least and see how your chart's list compares to your original prediction.

If other people's lists in fact match, then we really have to wonder what on earth is going on here? On the other hand, if people start getting radically different results from their predictions, then obviously my experience was unique and mere coincidence. But let's go ahead and test this. (Robert, do it, man!)

In the meantime, if anybody besides Eric with knowledge of this stuff would care to comment please do so. I noticed in the archived forums that Brian Rush is familiar with this. Brian, would you care to share your views on how this applies to who we are? For example, would you discard the individual aspect traits and place any value in the relative influence of the planets as I did in my analysis? Ally, you claim to know something as well. Share your views for the heck of it.

Again, at this point, I am forced to regard my experience as coincidence. If other people here have similar experiences, then I might have to consider that there is an actual correlation. Please go ahead and try it and let's see what you get. But thank you, Eric, it was interesting and indeed surprising.