sun or moon or both

Professional-capable

star-lover, I do not practice professionally although I have no doubt about being able to if so inclined. I have been very active since the early 1970's and was associated with Izabel Hickey of Boston and her Star Rover's association, was president of the Massachusetts Astrological Association, co-founded the Worcester Astrological Study Group (met weekly, year round for seven years), and have taught and lectured quite a bit. I also studied with Jeff Mayo of the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London and Rob Pelletier (author of Planets in Aspect and Planets in Houses). Several of my "students" have gone on to professional work -- one has a world wide private clientel, the other is engaged in Asteroids/Astrology and has the most extensive research background on that subject. Others that have now passed on have been writers.

I've done a lot of research and explored many areas of astrology. Over time, I have reduced the methods I use to only a few, throwing out all of the bunk that gets endlessly repeated, and using only that which work all of the time. There are lots of good topical areas to explore, such as the earlier-mentioned Lunar Zodiac for interpreting the Moon.

So, the point of all of this is that, yes, I can practice professionally but I chose not to. I didn't want clients that wanted me to take charge of their lives. In the 70's and 80's, there seemed to be a general immaturity in people who always wanted answers but never wanted to take the time to work on finding their own answers. By avoiding public practice I can concentrate on the things I want. Rob Pelletier once said that as a professional he always had to be ready and able to serve a client, that he never had time to do the fun stuff that I did. Work should be fun. Dave

wow

thats amazing - i've heard of all of those people
i understand the rationale behind the love of research and teaching as opposed to taking on personal clients

(apart from linda goodman's sunsigns) my first book was jeff mayo's teach yourself astrology when i was a teenager - i loved that little book so much and read it so often the pages were all nearly fallen out lol - he had such a simple down to earth style - great for beginners

i did a basic course at the mayo school of astrology by correspondence back in the early 80s and got my little certificate lol - joan porter was my tutor, she was so encouraging, lovely lady

in those days you had to try and grasp the concepts behind the maths before you could cast a chart (now we have software) and although i learnt to do it i never really understood the various concepts

and the advanced course was a no go unless i was solidly grounded in the basics - so i dropped out (i was in my early 20s and just was too young and inexperienced to understand what some of the planets and houses really mean and the rest of it - i think life experience is a big advantage - i was trying to learn too much too soon - headache material) example, was trying to read that book recent advances in natal astrology - was so advanced for me but i liked reading it anyhow - found it all so fascinating

another reason being it all got so complicated the more authors you read - in this case i like your throwing out all the rubbish or what doesn't work for you almost 100% of the time - thats excellent thinking and i am going to start afresh with that guideline and make sure i am very clear in my mind what each factor means to me and keep it simple

Thank you

Thanks for your reply, star-lover. I also had to drop out of the Faculty of Astrological Studies before advanced studies due to heavy traveling with my work at that time. If you care to share notes on methodologies that you like, I'll share what I have found as being workable. Some practices can be quite unsetteling to some -- like interpreting a chart without signs, houses, aspects. This is really neat. Anyways, write if you have questions or want to share notes. Dave

thanks

thanks dave
will do


"like interpreting a chart without signs, houses, aspects"

do you mean ommiting one of those in interpretation - surely not all three - sounds intereseting

For star-lover

Yes, all three. Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

Yes, all three. Dave

Click to expand...

ok i dont get it

if you dont have houses you dont have a chart
if you dont have aspects or signs then all you have is planets in no sign, no aspect and no house

lol what am i missing here
apart from interpreting what a certain planet represents universally i dont get it

aha
do you mean draw the chart up but remove the house lines and signs and just look at the planets in an empty circle

For star-lover

Not quite, but you are getting close. Actually, Minderwiz and I did this awhile back. The methodology is called Planets in Containment. Listing the planets in their zodiacal or ccw order, starting at any point, you interprete the "chart" (or non-chart) merely using each planet coupled with it's adjacent planets using the CCW order.

The central planet of any three-some has an essential general meaning. The planet before it (10 degrees, 50 degrees, 100 degrees -- whatever) brings a basic conditioning or bias that changes the meaning of the pair of planets. The planet "following" the central planet has to express that paired energy. Using this approach, you move thru the entire sequence of planets, treating each as the central planet relative to the planet preceeding it and following it. The interpretations are quite appropriate. Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

Not quite, but you are getting close. Actually, Minderwiz and I did this awhile back. The methodology is called Planets in Containment. Listing the planets in their zodiacal or ccw order, starting at any point, you interprete the "chart" (or non-chart) merely using each planet coupled with it's adjacent planets using the CCW order.

The central planet of any three-some has an essential general meaning. The planet before it (10 degrees, 50 degrees, 100 degrees -- whatever) brings a basic conditioning or bias that changes the meaning of the pair of planets. The planet "following" the central planet has to express that paired energy. Using this approach, you move thru the entire sequence of planets, treating each as the central planet relative to the planet preceeding it and following it. The interpretations are quite appropriate. Dave

Click to expand...

Dad, I'd like to try this approach. Sounds like a great exercise. Was your exhange with Minderwiz in a thread here? Thanks.

SL.... sorry for jumping to unwarranted assumptions. I think you are right that some of us have a bias for our moon rather than our sun. That can be due to our circumstances in life. For example, a woman with Sun in Aries in the 10th house, who lives in a very conservative culture is not likely to be able to express this Sun out in the world. So she will either project the Sun onto her partner or lapse into her moon. Another possibility is having very strong aspects to the moon, so there is more "umph" than with the sun.

Linda Goodman's book on sun signs makes excellent material for starting fires, btw and every aspiring astrologer should make haste to use it in this fashion. It has no other uses.

For Wizzle

The thread I did with Minderwiz may have been a year ago. "Containment" is a handy reference for doing readings when you don't have a chart available but only someones memory or an ephemeris to look up a date.

The important point is not that this is possible, but what seems to make it work? It may go back to some really basic basics: 1) What was in the sky when you were born, 2) what was below the horizon or missing, 3) what came over the horizon next that you had to adapt to experiencing, 4) what dropped below the western horizon that you "lost", and 5) what was the time interval between these events?

If we start to consider only what these points mean, then we start to see an emerging cycle that we have to adapt to -- in other words, we learn something about our chart and how we express it. Sequence is important. What would change if you moved the Moon somewhere else, and moved Mercury to the other side of the Sun? Oh, what kind of a person might we have been if born just a few weeks earlier or later?

I think that "Containment" interpretation is somewhat built upon this type of exercise. Each of our planets followed another planet and was, in turn, followed by another planet. Interesting to consider.

If we want to do containment exploration we will need to start another thread. Some of us may even want to get the book afterwards. Dave

I've heard this said about the positioning of my Sun to my Mercury...they are both side by side, the Sun(18 degrees) being in front of my Mercury(16 degrees). The effect being a "blinding" of sorts to Mercury. The thinking process is stiffled or slowed down. So, I'm thinking, if it had been the other way around (Merc-18 and Sun at 16) then perhaps Mercury's path would have been illuminated rather than blinded? Perhaps making learning easier? Also, in regards to Jupiter...I have friends who were born the same year as I. One was born in January(0 degrees Cancer) while the other in March where Jupiter was 25 degrees also in Cancer. I caught the tail end of Jupiter at 27 degrees Cancer. Now I understand that everyone is fortunate in different ways and at different times, but my March friend seems to be very fortunate, monetarily speaking, than the two of us. Would this be a proper way to interprete "containment"?