Reading Your Chart

[Minderwiz]

Lunalafey,

The book is an account of Tracy Marks' method and weighting but if you are after a very methodical approach to chart interpretation then this is a good book. However it assumes that you are pretty familiar with the meanings attached to signs, planets and Houses and that you want some structure for integrating the various chart aspects - if this is where you are then this book is a very good buy.

If you don't feel that you are familiar with these areas then Arroyo's book is the best one, then progress onto Marks when you feel comfortable.

 

[Barbaras Ahajusts]

Pictures to help...ARGH!

In the context I've used it a strong aspect is one which is exact or near to it. For example a square is a 90 degree angle between two planets, if the angle is say 88- 92 degrees I would take this as a strong aspect. If the angle were say 84 - 96 degrees I would take that as a weak aspect.
There is no hard and fast rules about how quickly aspects use strength and indeed whether they ever become so weak as to be completely negligible. However for practical purposes all astrologers will set 'orbs' - a range around the exact angle - which they will use to decide whether an aspect should be considered. All astrologers will agree that the nearer to exact the angle becomes the stronger is the interaction between the two planets.

I'm not a math person, and obviously it is going to show in this post.
Is there pictures with the exact degree anywhere for reference?
Example, L = ?degrees , _l= ?degrees.

Sorry for this, but I have to see to understand.

Thanks so much for your help!
I've googled this question and got an answer. Thank you anyway.
Barb

 

[leephd]

Doubt isn't the issue

and, moreover: how can one doubt "the king of the centaurs"?!?

~Z~770

Actually - doubt is easy. The queston isn't Chiron's position among the pantheon's, but mythology's place in astrological interpretation! You see - there's no evidence that any of the interretations in astrology were ever that closely linked to mythology until either the 19th or the 20th century.

Babylonian astrology lacked any kind of birth chart untl relatively late (circa 400 BCE) - so an comments about the planets before that were omenistic, not descriptive. Even once the birth chart developed, the birth was read omenistically - it showed what you would do, not who you were. In this context, stories about Marduk were not especially useful to astrological analysis.

Hellenistic astrology developed in a culture in which the "gods" were not necessarily taken that seriously - and at any rate, there was a polyglot of possible deities. Stories of Aphrodite's loves were just that - stories. Hellenistic astrology developed ideas of timing - again, not mythic based.

These were the two root systems for the development of Western classical astrology - along with cross-fertilization from India. By the development of classical astrology by the Arabs, one monotheism or another was the dominant cultural influence, and so again, these myths were just stories. And not especially applicable to event-based astrology.

Mythology only comes on strong in astrology after Jung's work showing the correlation of mythical themes with many life issues for the person. And by this time, modern astrology had developed the concept that the birth chart shows who you are, as well as where you're going. It's within that context of "who" that mythical themes become important.

But this kind of modern astrology is less than 100 years old. We have yet to see how stable it will be.