13
Dear Thomas, I didn't mean to offend you nor compete you.
It's just that I have come across your arguments many times in the web -this forum also included-, and all I see is the same argument on how this should be the proper national horoscope and not another etc, without having seen from you what you do with that horoscope. I mean, without having seen actual astrology. If you say "this is the national horoscope I consider for valid -for all the reasons you mentioned- and these are, for example, my delineations for year 2012", I am totally with you and glad to be part of such a conversation.
Otherwise, I personally have nothing to discuss further.

regards,
Georgia

14
Georgia I wrote in my previous post that you seem hasty in judging people but now you seem hasty in judging articles too. Have you ever read my article on the national horoscope of Greece in the first place? Because in it I present plenty of arguments, the two most fundamental of them being 1) that the national horoscope I propose is based on the historical Declaration of Independence of the Greeks from the Turks (who had occupied Greece for 4 centuries!), on the 13th of January 1822 2) that even the Greek Political Scientists argue that modern Greece was "born" on the 13th of January 1822.

Here is my relative article: http://astro.getforum.org/modern-greece ... -t466.html
Know Thyself

15
Hello Thomas,

I have read your article and have studied mundane astrology extensively but I remain unconvinced by your position. That is not say that the 1822 chart you advocate vigourously is not worthy of serious study and consideration. I agree it is. Its clearly a key historical moment in Greek history.

My problem with your position is more fundamental than that. I simply dont agree that one chart can sum up a country.

I have addressed that point very extensively in the other thread you just opened so I will not repeat all the points I just made against your position here. Of course we are all entitled to our pet theories and charts. I have some of my own too. For example, I think the 1789 constitutional chart for the USA should be looked as seriously as the various 1776 charts. However, its just my view.

At the risk of hubris here is a key section from my fuller post:
Rather than seeking the 'one true chart' to rule them all I concur with the ideas of the Irish astrologer Bill Sheeran. He focusses on identifying a 'family' of associated charts for a nation and finding the common themes. In particular Sheeran suggests we need to focus on 'structural coupling', which describes how planetary transits, etc. activate a whole family of historically linked charts at the same time.

In my opinion Bill Sheeran's article on national charts ' The Observer Observed' is the most philosophically profound piece ever written on national charts.

http://www.radical-astrology.com/articl ... index.html
As Sheeran states:
There is no birth chart for a nation, only charts for significant moments in the unfolding of a nation's political and societal processes. And which of these 'speak' to a particular astrologer says as much about that person's perceptions, contextual understanding and the way they practice the craft as it does about the essence of the craft itself.
Anyway, check out my reply on the other thread and why I also think the quest for a 'one true national chart' in the case of a country is an illusionary one.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6847

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

16
hi mark,

thanks for commenting and sharing what looks like an interesting link as well. i agree with some of these ideas too. it is interesting to think of foundation charts, verses charts of significant moments in the unfolding of a nation. in this regard one could view moments in the life of a person as significant too, but all still going back to the original chart of birth.. as a side note, the 1789 -april 30 1245pm new york is my favourite chart for the usa. i am not as attracted to the ones for 1776.. this is based on considering this chart for the first presidency of the usa more seriously and thinking it has greater relevance. - james

17
Hello dear Mark! Great to have astrological discussions with you!

Let's see your arguments: You wrote me: "My problem with your position is more fundamental than that. I simply dont agree that one chart can sum up a country".

First of all, that's not "my" position but the position of millions of astrologers all over the world.

You don't agree that a chart can sum up a country. That's your position dear Mark, a position you are backing up with Bill Sheeran's theory "there is no birth chart for a nation"!

But as Bill Sheeran himself confesses, this theory was actually brewed in his mind after a years long failed attempt from his side to determine a proper national horoscope for Ireland! But how could he do that when Ireland is not currently a whole, entire Nation State but a "half" one, since it has been divided (by an external force) in two parts? Ultimately, the difficulty in determining Ireland's National Horoscope brilliantly mirrors the fact that there is no entire Ireland but a "severed" one currently!

You see Mark if there is no birth chart for a nation then there shouldn't be a birth chart for a city, nor for an association, a corporation, nor for a shop. Maybe there shouldn't be birth charts for human beings too...Yes, maybe we are in that kind of illusion! Maybe it would suffice to study the prenatal Lunar eclipses or ingresses of a human being (as Sheeran instructs us to do in the case of nations) and NOT his birth chart!

At some other point in his article Sheeran is writing: "In my analogy, and taking a leaf from C. G. Jung". He is taking a leaf from Jung but he is not taking in consideration Jung's major axiom: "whatever is born or done at a particular moment of time, has the quality of that moment of time". But this is a major astrological axiom too. "Things, situations, beings etc. are born at a specific moment in time and bear the quality of that moment in time"! That's elementary astrology dear Mark. Unless we want to impose a new "quantistic" astrology where things, situations, beings are born through an array of moments in time and in various parallel universes...

So dear Mark you admire Bill Sheeran's theory but apparently you don't apply it! You have ventured - for example - on doing predictions for Greece and you always stick to the very same chart: the 1975 Greek constitutional "amendment" chart! This goes against Bill Sheeran's "structural coupling" theory! I have never seen you for example taking in consideration in your studies the 13th January 1822 (NS) chart, the one stemming out of the Declaration of Independence of the Greeks from the Turks (who had militarily occupied Greece for 4 centuries), the chart I propose as the "national horoscope" of Greece). There is no structural coupling in your Greek predictions but a unilateral use of a "Greek constitutional amendment" chart. Bill Sheeran would be mad with this kind of "unilateral" reasoning...
Know Thyself