Posted Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:37 pm by StarAgeWiz
In my experience of casting hundreds of Solunars about 65% Locality vs. 35% Birth Place accuracy in describing angular planetary influences suitable for events or conditions during at or during the Solunar cycles. At times both the Birth & Locality Angular planets illustrate the symbolism fitting the event...Birth giving the basis for the Locality expression. A few times there is no correspondence between Solunars and a given situation or event. Firebrace editor of SPICA Journal believed that Lunars should be cast for Birth Place, while Solars are cast for Residence. John Murziak (Dean of SF School of Sidereal Astrology..circa 1970's) insisted that all Solunars were accurate only for Birth Place. Of course Fagan was a staunch proponent for Locality Solunars.
Solunars Birth Place or Residence
-
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
- Irish
- Posts: 3522
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm
-
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
- Irish
- Posts: 3522
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm
Re: Solunars Birth Place or Residence
Posted Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:02 pm by Jim Eshelman
Locale. There really isn't any comparison or open question.
The apparent exceptions would be in cases where one is away from birthplace (or other semi-permanent "base of operations") temporarily, as when on a quick trip. The psychological center still seems to operate as if it's where one is (perhaps because, psychologically, one really is there). Or there may be events in progress at that locale which are dominating one's attention even when temporarily away from there.
But even this doesn't impede the locale from operating anyway. Numerous times I've had a poor-to-moderate SLR set up at my residence, then traveled across country to give a lecture - walking into a locale where, say, the Sun was right on the angle in that same SLR - and that's the influence that prevails for the trip.
Locale. There really isn't any comparison or open question.
The apparent exceptions would be in cases where one is away from birthplace (or other semi-permanent "base of operations") temporarily, as when on a quick trip. The psychological center still seems to operate as if it's where one is (perhaps because, psychologically, one really is there). Or there may be events in progress at that locale which are dominating one's attention even when temporarily away from there.
But even this doesn't impede the locale from operating anyway. Numerous times I've had a poor-to-moderate SLR set up at my residence, then traveled across country to give a lecture - walking into a locale where, say, the Sun was right on the angle in that same SLR - and that's the influence that prevails for the trip.
-
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
- Irish
- Posts: 3522
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm
Re: Solunars Birth Place or Residence
Posted Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:18 am by StarAgeWiz
There's been enough Birth Solunars, in my experience, that accurately describe a given event or psychological/mood condition to include them for consideration but give Locality priority of course. If there are no planets angular in the Locality SLR but are angular in the Birth SLR, then those angular planets can influence the native.
There's been enough Birth Solunars, in my experience, that accurately describe a given event or psychological/mood condition to include them for consideration but give Locality priority of course. If there are no planets angular in the Locality SLR but are angular in the Birth SLR, then those angular planets can influence the native.
-
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
- Irish
- Posts: 3522
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm
Re: Solunars Birth Place or Residence
Posted Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:53 am by Jim Eshelman
StarAgeWiz wrote:
There's been enough Birth Solunars, in my experience, that accurately describe a given event or psychological/mood condition to include them for consideration but give Locality priority of course. If there are no planets angular in the Locality SLR but are angular in the Birth SLR, then those angular planets can influence the native.
Though I can't dispute your experience in this, I have to say that I just don't see it - other than in the specialized cases I mentioned above.
You make an interesting distinction, though - so I started thinking through the statistical model. We might state it something like this. PREMISE: That, using only those cases where an SLR for location does not have event-appropriate planets foreground, then the event-appropriate planets will be foreground in the SLR for birthplace.
Thinking this through... The premise necessarily excludes examples where the geographic relationship between birthplace and residence would produce the same foreground planets. For example, if someone hadn't moved far - say, born in San Francisco and moved to Los Angeles - then it wouldn't be a fair test (it would necessarily exclude the birthplace from [almost] ever showing anything appropriate if residence didn't show it). But this consideration also would apply to places like Los Angeles vs. Sydney, which are the same latitude (on opposite sides of the equator) and 90 degrees separate in longitude.
So, if (to be fair to the premise) we are excluding birthplace-residence combinations that mostly replicate what is foreground, and (per the premise) the event-appropriate planets aren't foreground in the residence, then they (necessarily) must be middleground or background at the residence. Another way to say it is that the foreground of one locale in such a study would substantially be either the middleground or the background of another locale. For example, planets in the middleground at my residence (Los Angeles) would nearly always be in the foreground for my birthplace (Rochester, IN).
What this means is that, if an event-appropriate planet isn't foreground at residence (for any charts that could reasonably be included in such a study), then the odds are 50-50% that it would be foreground for birthplace; and the pattern would be (most of the time) the same for a given individual (i.e., a given birthplace-residence pair).
Let's take the case of a violent accident. Statistics show that violent accidents have a very high likelihood of occurring when either transiting or natal Saturn or Mars is foreground. If the SLR had any of these four foreground, then it would be considered a "hit." But, according to the premise, if none of those four planets - natal Mars, natal Saturn, transiting Mars, transiting Saturn - were foreground, then we would look to the birthplace to see if any one of them was foreground. Under the test proposed, the odds are 50% for each planet that it would be foreground for birthplace. The odds that any one of the four would be foreground would be .5 + .25 + .125 + .0625 = 0.9375 - almost a certainty on purely random distribution.
StarAgeWiz wrote:
There's been enough Birth Solunars, in my experience, that accurately describe a given event or psychological/mood condition to include them for consideration but give Locality priority of course. If there are no planets angular in the Locality SLR but are angular in the Birth SLR, then those angular planets can influence the native.
Though I can't dispute your experience in this, I have to say that I just don't see it - other than in the specialized cases I mentioned above.
You make an interesting distinction, though - so I started thinking through the statistical model. We might state it something like this. PREMISE: That, using only those cases where an SLR for location does not have event-appropriate planets foreground, then the event-appropriate planets will be foreground in the SLR for birthplace.
Thinking this through... The premise necessarily excludes examples where the geographic relationship between birthplace and residence would produce the same foreground planets. For example, if someone hadn't moved far - say, born in San Francisco and moved to Los Angeles - then it wouldn't be a fair test (it would necessarily exclude the birthplace from [almost] ever showing anything appropriate if residence didn't show it). But this consideration also would apply to places like Los Angeles vs. Sydney, which are the same latitude (on opposite sides of the equator) and 90 degrees separate in longitude.
So, if (to be fair to the premise) we are excluding birthplace-residence combinations that mostly replicate what is foreground, and (per the premise) the event-appropriate planets aren't foreground in the residence, then they (necessarily) must be middleground or background at the residence. Another way to say it is that the foreground of one locale in such a study would substantially be either the middleground or the background of another locale. For example, planets in the middleground at my residence (Los Angeles) would nearly always be in the foreground for my birthplace (Rochester, IN).
What this means is that, if an event-appropriate planet isn't foreground at residence (for any charts that could reasonably be included in such a study), then the odds are 50-50% that it would be foreground for birthplace; and the pattern would be (most of the time) the same for a given individual (i.e., a given birthplace-residence pair).
Let's take the case of a violent accident. Statistics show that violent accidents have a very high likelihood of occurring when either transiting or natal Saturn or Mars is foreground. If the SLR had any of these four foreground, then it would be considered a "hit." But, according to the premise, if none of those four planets - natal Mars, natal Saturn, transiting Mars, transiting Saturn - were foreground, then we would look to the birthplace to see if any one of them was foreground. Under the test proposed, the odds are 50% for each planet that it would be foreground for birthplace. The odds that any one of the four would be foreground would be .5 + .25 + .125 + .0625 = 0.9375 - almost a certainty on purely random distribution.